keyso_get_serp_id_competitor_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a GET request, implying a read-only operation, and it shows the endpoint path, but it says nothing about response structure, pagination behavior, authentication, or how the context/organic filters affect results.

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 front-loads the purpose before showing the HTTP method, path, and example request. It avoids filler, though the phrase 'Онлайн парсер выдачи' is somewhat vague and the method/path lines partly duplicate what the schema/name already imply.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the response contains and clarify the unusual 'id' parameter, but it does neither. The endpoint is simple, yet the definition still leaves the agent unsure about response shape and how this tool relates to the many competitor-focused sibling tools.

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 though the tool description adds no parameter documentation. The schema provides some meaning for context, organic, page, and per_page, but the required 'id' is only described as 'in: path (auto-detected)', which is not semantically informative.

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 'Онлайн парсер выдачи - сайты конкурентов' plus the explicit path /serp/<id>/competitor-domains makes it clear that this endpoint returns competitor domains for a saved SERP. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related sibling tools such as keyso_get_serp_id_competitor_pages or the various report tools for competitors.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than sibling competitor-domain endpoints or report tools. The description only gives the HTTP method, path, and an example request, leaving the selection entirely to the agent.

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