keyso_post_tools_concurents_by_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool creates a report and returns an ID, but it does not mention that the report may be generated asynchronously, that a status check via get_tools_concurents_by_keywords_state_uid is needed, or any error/rate-limit behavior. The description is too sparse.

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 concise, consisting of a title and two sentences. It includes method and path, which may be redundant, but it is not verbose. The key information (creates report, returns ID) is front-loaded.

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 that this is a creation tool that returns an ID, the description should mention that the ID is used with the sibling state and UID endpoints to retrieve the report. It does not. Also, the absence of any body specification makes it incomplete for an agent to call correctly. The description fails to cover the full flow.

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?

The description does not explain what the 'body' parameter should contain. The schema defines body as an empty object with additionalProperties allowed, which provides no guidance. The description only mentions the action, not the required fields like keywords, region, or competitors, leaving an agent without enough information to construct a valid request.

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 it creates a report of competitor share by search phrases ('Доля конкурентов по поисковым фразам - создание отчета') and returns an identifier. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling GET tools that retrieve report data, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives.

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 minimal guidance: it says the report is created and an ID is returned for later use, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus other report-creation tools like keyso_post_report_system_keywords or keyso_post_tools_keywords_by_list. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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