keyso_get_tools_concurents_by_keywords_state_uid

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the disclosure burden. It transparently states that the tool returns report processing status rather than report data, and it exposes the HTTP method and path. However, it does not disclose what status values may be returned, behavior when the report is not ready, error cases, or authentication expectations.

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 concise and front-loaded: it leads with the purpose, then gives method, path, and a concrete example URL. There is no filler, and every line contributes actionable information.

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 simple status endpoint with one required parameter and a fully documented schema, the description is minimally adequate for making the call. Still, there is no output schema and no mention of status semantics or how this endpoint relates to its sibling report-creation/result-fetching tools, leaving some important context missing.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning; it only embeds uid in the example URL. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 a specific resource ('competitors by keywords') and the action as fetching the report processing status, reinforced by the GET method and /state/<uid> path. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling endpoint that retrieves the completed report, keyso_get_tools_concurents_by_keywords_uid.

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 word 'status' and the /state/<uid> path imply this is a polling endpoint, likely used after creating a report and before fetching results. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention the typical create → wait → fetch flow.

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