keyso_get_zen_channel_new_top_publications

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does state that this is a GET request and shows an example query, but it does not mention authentication requirements, response shape, pagination behavior, limits, or side effects. For a read endpoint this is a notable but not fatal gap.

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 method, path, and example clearly separated. It does not waste words, though the opening line 'Дзен - Топ новых публикаций Дзен' is partly redundant with the tool name and could have been replaced with a short behavioral statement.

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 simple GET endpoint with fully documented parameters, the method, path, and example request are enough to make a basic call. However, there is no output schema and the description does not indicate what the response contains, how 'new top publications' is defined, or whether a channel identifier is required elsewhere.

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 and the schema already explains page, sort, forDay, per_page, token, and base_url. The example URL adds a concrete usage pattern (sort=countViews|desc, page=1, per_page=25, forDay=30) but no new semantic meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 names the resource ('Топ новых публикаций Дзен'), specifies the HTTP method and path, and gives an example request. It is clear enough to identify what the tool returns, though the verb is implied by the 'GET' line and tool name rather than explicitly stated. It does not contrast with the closely related sibling keyso_get_zen_channel_publications.

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 the many sibling Zen/report tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implied usage is 'call this endpoint', which leaves selection entirely to the agent.

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