keyso_get_wordstat_get_project_status

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

With no annotations, the description supplies the main behavioral signals: it is a GET request and a status check, implying read-only behavior with no data mutation. However, it does not describe the response shape, possible status values, authentication requirements, or any rate-limit or caveat behavior.

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 purpose before the method/path/example. The example URL partly duplicates the declared path, but there is no significant filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the response contains or how to interpret status values. It also does not state that a project id is required in practice, leaving an agent without enough context to fully verify a successful status check.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, token, and base_url. The description's example with ?id=5672 reinforces that id is used in the query, but it does not add substantial meaning 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 a specific operation — checking the completion status of an update in the Wordstat parser — and gives the endpoint path and an example request. It clearly reads as a status-check tool, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling listing/report tools.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description never says to call this after creating/updating a Wordstat project or mentions alternatives such as keyso_get_wordstat_get_projects_completed; the intended usage is only implied by the phrase 'checking the status of update completion.'

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