keyso_post_tools_compare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only provides the endpoint and an example URL. It does not state whether the operation is synchronous or follows the async state/uid pattern common among sibling tools, what the response contains, or whether any state is created.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose statement. The 'Method: POST / Path: /tools/compare / Example request' lines are largely redundant with the tool name and endpoint, but they add little noise and the overall definition remains compact.

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 POST tool with an open body schema, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine the JSON structure of the request body, the response format, or whether the tool follows the state/uid async pattern seen in many siblings, so it lacks critical information needed to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (body, token, base_url all have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by implying the body should carry keyword lists — valuable because the body's properties object is empty and unrestricted, making this the only hint about its expected content.

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 'Сравнение списков ключевых фраз' ('Comparison of lists of key phrases'), identifying a specific verb (compare) and resource (key phrase lists), which aligns with the tool name and path. However, it doesn't explain what 'compare' produces (intersection, difference, overlap stats), so an agent cannot fully distinguish it from sibling tools like keyso_post_tools_unique or keyso_post_tools_combine.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as keyso_post_tools_unique, keyso_post_tools_combine, or keyso_post_tools_delete_double. It also omits prerequisites (e.g., needing two keyword lists) and expected outcomes, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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