keyso_get_wordstat_report

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 discloses the HTTP method (GET) and path, and mentions that the response is grouped by query unless the 'full' parameter is present. However, it doesn't describe pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response structure looks like. The description is minimal and leaves important behavioral details undisclosed.

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 (one sentence plus an example URL), which is concise. However, the Russian text is somewhat cryptic ('Онлайн парсер Wordstat - результат парсинга частотности') and the example URL is not formatted as a code block, making it slightly harder to parse. The description earns its place but could be more structured with a clear action statement and a formatted example.

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 report-retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the report contains, how to interpret the response, or how this tool fits into the Wordstat workflow (e.g., after creating a project and waiting for completion). The example URL helps but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and workflow context.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds the example URL showing how sort, page, and per_page are used together, which is marginally helpful. However, the description doesn't explain the meaning of the 'full' parameter beyond what the schema says, nor does it clarify the relationship between projectId and the Wordstat project lifecycle. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 says 'Онлайн парсер Wordstat - результат парсинга частотности' (Online Wordstat parser - result of parsing frequency), which identifies the tool as retrieving a Wordstat frequency report. It includes the HTTP method and path, but the description is vague about what exactly the report contains and doesn't clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like keyso_get_wordstat_list or keyso_get_wordstat_get_project_status. The verb 'get' is implied by the name and path, but the description doesn't explicitly state the action.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project created first via keyso_post_wordstat_create_project), nor does it explain when to use keyso_get_wordstat_list or keyso_get_wordstat_get_project_status instead. The only usage hint is the example URL, which shows how to call it but not when.

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