keyso_get_serp_id

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It does state Method: GET and the exact path, which signals a read operation, but it does not mention authentication requirements, whether the parse result can be large, what data components are returned by default, or any limitations. The behavioral description is minimal.

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 short and includes useful operational details: HTTP method, path, and an example URL. However, the opening 'Онлайн парсер выдачи - результат парсинга выдачи' is somewhat redundant, as both halves refer to the same parsing result concept. Overall it is tight and front-loaded enough.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many SERP-related sibling tools, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to obtain the <id>, which flags are needed to retrieve different parts of the SERP data, whether any flags are required, or what the response structure looks like. An agent would struggle to call this correctly in a real workflow.

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%, and the schema already documents all 9 parameters, including filters like 'word', component flags like 'organic', and token override behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (SERP parse output) and the grouping behavior ('группировка по фразам'), and the path /serp/<id> clarifies this is a retrieval operation for a specific parse id. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like keyso_get_serp_id_status or keyso_get_serp_id_csv, but the combination of name, method, and path makes the core purpose reasonably clear.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'результат парсинга выдачи' implies it is used after a parse has been created, but there is no mention of how it relates to keyso_post_serp, keyso_get_serp_id_status, or keyso_get_serp_id_csv. An agent is left to infer the correct call sequence.

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