keyso_get_tools_keywords_by_pages_weight_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that this is a GET request and includes an example URL, but it does not describe auth requirements, output format, pagination behavior, or any operational side effects beyond being a read operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by method, path, and one illustrative example. Every line earns its place, though the overall brevity leaves some functional gaps.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to support confident invocation. It provides an example but omits details about response structure, required report context, auth fallback behavior, and how this report relates to the sibling creation/report tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds little parameter-level meaning. The example URL demonstrates base, sort, page, and per_page usage, which is mildly helpful, but the description does not explain filter semantics or sort formats beyond what the schema already documents.

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 'Список запросов страниц - отчет по весу' clearly identifies the tool as a report listing page queries by weight, with the HTTP method and path reinforcing the resource. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like keyso_get_tools_keywords_by_pages_pages_uid, but the 'weight' qualifier provides enough differentiation.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the pages-level report or the POST endpoint that creates the report. It only states the endpoint and shows an example URL, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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