keyso_get_tools_dictionary_ext_by_page_state_uid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a GET request, implying a read operation, but it does not describe the response shape, possible status values, polling behavior, or error conditions. For an asynchronous status endpoint, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 compact and free of filler; the method, path, and example request all contribute practical value. It could be structured slightly better by front-loading the purpose before routing details, but it is appropriately short.

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 simple one-required-parameter GET endpoint, and the description is adequate for constructing a request. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the lack of information about what the returned status looks like and how the uid relates to the asynchronous workflow leaves a clear completeness gap.

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%, with uid documented as the report identifier and token/base_url as overrides. The description adds only an example URL containing a sample uid, which is useful but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states the tool returns the report processing status for the dictionary extension by page ('статус обработки отчета') and gives the HTTP method and path, which makes the resource and operation identifiable. It is distinguishable from siblings like post_tools_dictionary_ext_by_page by the explicit 'status' framing, though it does not name the sibling explicitly.

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 poll this status endpoint, how the uid is obtained, or when to switch to a results-fetching sibling such as keyso_get_tools_dictionary_ext_by_page_uid. The usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'status', not stated.

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