keyso_get_tools_extended_keywords_uid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It only lists the HTTP method and path, which are already known from the tool name and schema. It does not mention authentication requirements (despite the token parameter), rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the response contains. For a GET operation, it does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive. This is a significant 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 very brief, but it includes an example request that is helpful for understanding the URL structure. However, it redundantly includes the HTTP method and path, which are already encoded in the tool name and schema. The conciseness is acceptable, but the content could be more informative without adding length.

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 tool with seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the returned result contains, how pagination works (page, per_page), or how to use the filter parameter. The agent is left without essential information to correctly interpret the response or construct queries beyond the example. This is a significant 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented with their locations and meanings. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it does not explain the sort format (field|direction) or the filter options, relying on the schema's brief descriptions. Per the calibration, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load, and the description provides no extra value.

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 'Расширение ключевых фраз - получение результата' (Extended key phrases - obtaining the result), which clearly indicates retrieving the result of an extended keywords operation by UID. The path and method further clarify the action, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like keyso_get_tools_extended_keywords_state_uid, which also relates to extended keywords. Still, the verb 'получение' (obtaining) and the resource are clear enough.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool should be used after creating a report via keyso_post_tools_extended_keywords, nor does it contrast with the state endpoint (keyso_get_tools_extended_keywords_state_uid) for checking status. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer the usage context.

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