keyso_get_wordstat_get_projects_completed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions it is a GET request and shows an example URL, but does not disclose response format, pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if ids are omitted. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method.

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 concise, containing only a title, method/path, and an example request. There is no fluff or redundant information. It is efficient but extremely sparse, bordering on under-specification rather than being tightly written.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and all parameters are optional, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify what 'completed projects' are, what the response contains, or how to interpret the ids parameter (e.g., whether it filters or is required). The description is too minimal to guide an agent effectively.

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 each parameter is already documented: ids (comma-separated project IDs), token (API token override), base_url (base URL override). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Per the baseline for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns a list of completed projects ('список готовых проектов'), which is a clear verb+resource, but it is vague about what 'completed' means in the Wordstat context. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like keyso_get_wordstat_list, which likely returns all projects. The tool name itself is more specific than the description.

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 the many sibling Wordstat tools. The description provides only an endpoint and example, without any context about when to call it (e.g., after creating a project or checking status). The agent is left to infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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