keyso_post_report_system_keywords

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 and path, which implies a POST request, but does not explain side effects, whether it creates a report job, whether it returns synchronous results, or any rate limits or auth requirements. The example URL hints at query parameters but does not describe behavior beyond the request shape.

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 very short, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the HTTP method and path, which is useful, but the phrase 'Запросы сервиса' is vague filler. It earns a 3 because it is brief and structured, but not because it is well-crafted.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and sits among dozens of similar report tools, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what the report contains, how results are returned, or how this endpoint differs from sibling report endpoints. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly or interpret the response.

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 parameters. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the example URL, which shows strict=true and hideadult=true but does not explain them. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 is minimal: 'Запросы сервиса' (Service requests) plus HTTP method, path, and an example URL. It does not state what the tool actually does—what 'system_keywords' means, what data it returns, or what the report contains. The name suggests it posts a report for system keywords, but the description is essentially a tautology of the endpoint and provides no functional clarity.

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 report tools. The example URL shows query parameters but does not explain the use case, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent cannot determine when to choose this over keyso_get_report_simple_organic_keywords or other keyword report tools.

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