keyso_get_serp_id_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the HTTP method GET, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose response format, authentication requirements (beyond the token parameter), rate limits, or whether the status field contains progress states. The description gives minimal behavioral context.

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 very short and includes method, path, and an example URL in a compact format. It is front-loaded with the purpose phrase. No extra fluff, but it could benefit from a single full sentence to improve readability.

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 is simple but lacks an output schema, so the description should explain what the status response contains or how it fits into a workflow. It does neither, leaving an agent to guess whether the tool returns a simple 'status' string or a detailed object. The polling pattern expected by such an endpoint is also absent.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds no additional semantics beyond referencing the path parameter <id> in the example URL. This matches the baseline of 3 without extra value.

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 identifies the tool as a status checker for SERP parsing via the endpoint path /serp/<id>/status. It clearly conveys the resource and action (checking parsing status), distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch results or update tasks. However, it lacks an explicit verb phrase like 'get status of a SERP parsing job'.

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 versus other SERP tools, such as after creating a parsing task with keyso_post_serp or before fetching results with keyso_get_serp_id. No alternatives are mentioned, and no polling workflow is implied.

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