keyso_get_tools_extended_keywords_state_uid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the endpoint is a GET request, which implies a read operation, but it does not describe response content, possible state values, polling behavior, or any side effects. The agent is left without knowing what 'state' looks like or what values to expect.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the title, method, path, and an example in a few lines. Every sentence is informative, though the overall terseness leaves out important behavioral context.

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 status-polling endpoint, but the description lacks any explanation of the response format or state values (e.g., pending, completed, error). There is no output schema to fill that gap, and the description does not connect to the follow-up result endpoint. An agent cannot reliably interpret the outcome from the description alone.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters (uid, token, base_url) at 100% coverage. The description adds a concrete URL example that demonstrates the uid format in the path, which is helpful, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 resource (extended keywords report) and the fact that it concerns the report's state, with the explicit method and path. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase ('state of the report') rather than a clear verb-driven instruction like 'Get the status of an extended keywords report', and it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling result endpoint keyso_get_tools_extended_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 usage context is implied: the example shows that the uid comes from the task creation endpoint ('полученный в Расширение ключевых фраз - создание задания'). This suggests the endpoint is used to check the state after creating a task, but there is no explicit statement of when to poll, when to stop polling, or which alternative endpoint to use once the state is done.

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