keyso_get_wordstat_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions Method: GET and Path, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting semantics, response format, or any edge cases. The description is extremely minimal and does not convey what the agent should expect from the call.

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 and to the point. It includes the essential method, path, and a sample request, with no superfluous text. The purpose statement is front-loaded, followed by technical details. It is efficient and well-structured for a simple list endpoint.

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 no output schema and six optional parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'parsing task' is, what the response will contain, or how this list relates to other wordstat operations. The agent would lack context to know if this is the right tool and what to do with the results. This is a significant gap given the complexity of the domain.

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 all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds a concrete example request showing sort and pagination parameters, which helps illustrate how to combine them. However, this is marginal additional value beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 'Онлайн парсер Wordstat - список заданий на парсинг' (Online Wordstat parser - list of parsing tasks), which clearly identifies the tool as a listing endpoint for parsing tasks. It provides a verb (list) and a resource (parsing tasks), distinguishing it from other wordstat tools that create or modify projects. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like keyso_get_wordstat_get_projects_completed, so it's not a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions that would lead an agent to choose this endpoint over other wordstat list or project tools. The only contextual hint is the example query, but that's not usage guidance.

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