keyso_get_report_simple_top_domain_visibility

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does state that this is a GET-style read operation and that it returns a visibility rating, and it gives a concrete example request. However, it does not mention auth requirements, pagination behavior, or what fields the response contains, leaving notable gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: a one-phrase purpose, followed by method, path, and a realistic example. Every element earns its place and there is no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should explain more about what the response looks like and what 'base' means. The example makes a plausible call, and the schema documents most parameters, but an agent is left guessing about response structure and pagination defaults.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without extra parameter information. The example request adds a concrete illustration of base, domain, sort, page, and per_page usage, but it does not explain the meaning of 'base=msk' or add semantic detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Рейтинг сайтов по видимости' (rating of sites by visibility), which clearly identifies the resource and the kind of output. It is not a tautology and is specific about what the tool reports, but it does not contrast with the many sibling report_simple_* tools, so it misses the top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as keyso_get_report_simple_organic_keywords or keyso_get_report_simple_links_backlinks. The method/path/example block shows how to construct a request but gives no selection criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.