keyso_get_tools_dictionary_by_pages_uid

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only supplies the HTTP method and endpoint. It does not disclose authentication expectations (beyond the schema's token param), response format, whether the report is ready or requires an existing completed task, or any error/rate-limit behavior.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the report purpose, then method, path, and an example. Every element earns its place, though the example URL could arguably be considered implementation detail rather than guidance.

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 report-fetching tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits the key surrounding workflow: creation via a POST sibling, status polling via the state_uid sibling, and what the returned dictionary report actually contains. An agent has enough to construct the URL but not enough to confidently decide when this is the correct final step.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example URL (uid plus base=msk), which hints at the uid format and a possible base value, but it does not explain the semantic meaning of 'base' or 'uid' beyond their path/query locations.

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 concrete resource ('Словарь слов по страницам - отчет' = dictionary of words by pages report) and the HTTP GET method plus path make clear this retrieves an existing report for a UID. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from sibling tools like the POST creator or the state_uid endpoint, though it never explicitly says 'retrieve'.

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 guidance is given about when to call this endpoint versus creating a dictionary task, checking task state, or using the extended dictionary variants. The workflow (post to create, state_uid to poll, this to fetch the report) is only implicit from the tool name and path, not stated.

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