keyso_get_serp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal 'Method: GET', implying a read-only operation, and shows a concrete query example; however, it does not disclose authentication requirements, pagination behavior or limits, response shape, or how the isMain filter changes what gets listed. A list endpoint with zero annotation coverage needs more than a method and an example.

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?

At three short lines (label, method/path, example), the description is compact and front-loads the purpose before the endpoint details. The only minor waste is the phrase 'Онлайн парсер выдачи', which is a product-style label partially redundant with 'список заданий на парсинг'.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thin: it never explains what a returned parsing task contains, what fields are in each list item, when the token override is needed, or how tasks get created (via keyso_post_serp). An agent cannot predict the response structure at all, which matters for a list endpoint in a large sibling family.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine value by showing a worked example URL (`sort=created_at%7Cdesc&page=1&per_page=25`), which demonstrates the concrete sort field name and the URL-encoding of the pipe delimiter that the schema does not mention. This extra example helps an agent construct a valid request beyond what the schema alone communicates.

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 states the resource ('Онлайн парсер выдачи') and the specific operation ('список заданий на парсинг' — list of parsing tasks), which is more specific than the bare name keyso_get_serp. It implies distinction from siblings like keyso_get_serp_id (single task) and keyso_post_serp (create task), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus any of the 100+ siblings — no mention of keyso_get_serp_id for individual tasks, keyso_post_serp for creating tasks, or keyso_get_serp_id_csv for export. The description provides method, path, and an example URL but no context for when this list endpoint is the right choice or what prerequisites (e.g., token) apply.

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