keyso_get_tools_concurents_by_keywords_uid

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden on its own. It discloses only the HTTP method, path, and a sample URL; it does not state what the response contains, whether the UID must be created first, how errors surface, or any auth/rate-limit behavior. The safe read-only nature is only implicit in the GET method and 'report' wording.

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-loaded: a title line, then the method/path, then a representative example URL. No sentence is wasted, though the title line mostly restates the tool's purpose rather than adding detail.

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?

This is a result-retrieval endpoint with no output schema and no mention of its relationship to the companion POST and state-check tools, so an agent does not know when the report is ready or what the returned report looks like. The schema documents parameters well, but the description is incomplete for safely invoking this tool in the wider 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds concrete value through the example query string (base=msk, view=organic, sort=it50|desc, page=1, per_page=25). This gives an agent a realistic call shape that is especially useful for otherwise under-described parameters like base, and it clarifies how sort values are encoded in practice.

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 names a concrete resource ('Доля конкурентов по поисковым фразам - отчет') and explicitly states the HTTP verb GET, so an agent can tell this is a report-retrieval tool. However, it does not distinguish this from closely related sibling tools such as the POST creator or the state-check endpoint, so it misses the top score.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to the required prerequisite step (creating a report via keyso_post_tools_concurents_by_keywords or waiting on the state endpoint). The included example URL implies a direct GET call, but an agent is left to infer the intended workflow from the tool name and sibling list.

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