keyso_post_report_simple_links_domains_batch

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it creates a report, is asynchronous, requires specific permissions), rate limits, or error behavior. The example only shows a query parameter and gives no insight into the operation's traits.

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 but not well-structured. It front-loads a vague purpose, then provides technical details (method, path, example) without explaining the tool's function. It is under-specified rather than concise; every sentence could be more informative.

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 4 parameters including a free-form body object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It omits what the body should contain, what the response looks like, how to interpret results, and any operational requirements. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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% (each property has a description), so baseline is 3. However, the descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'in: query' for base, 'JSON body' for body) and the tool description adds no clarification about what 'base' means (likely a city/region code) or what the body should contain. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of semantic depth.

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 'Пакетный анализ по ссылкам' (batch analysis by links) and gives the method/path/example, but does not specify what the analysis produces, what 'domains-batch' implies, or how it differs from sibling tools like keyso_get_report_simple_links_backlinks_domains. The purpose is vague and not clearly differentiated.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description contains no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have no idea whether to choose this POST batch endpoint over the many GET report endpoints.

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