keyso_get_tools_keywords_by_pages_pages_uid

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety/behavior burden. It discloses that this is a GET request and gives a concrete example, but it does not describe what response shape the agent should expect, whether the report must already exist, or how pagination/sorting behave beyond the param names.

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 with the purpose, then the method/path and example. It contains no fluff, though it is formatted as a run-on sentence rather than clearly separated sections.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling endpoints, but the description omits return format, default values, available base values, filter syntax, and how to obtain the uid. The example URL is helpful but does not make the tool safely invocable without relying on external documentation.

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 example URL does add a concrete composition of base, sort, page, and per_page. However, the description does not clarify ambiguous parameters like base or filter, so it adds minimal semantic value over 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 a specific report resource ('Список запросов страниц - отчет по страницам') and gives the exact endpoint and an example URL, so an agent can infer it returns keyword/page report data for a UID. It does not use an explicit verb like 'get' and does not explicitly contrast it with sibling report tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 about when to call this tool versus the many sibling report/tool endpoints, nor any mention that the UID likely comes from a prior report-creation call. The example URL shows how to call it, but the description never states prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.

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