keyso_post_tools_dictionary_by_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that a report is created and an identifier is returned, which is useful. However, it does not mention async behavior, possible errors, auth needs, or resource implications.

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 core purpose. Including Method and Path is somewhat redundant with the tool's naming convention, but it does not significantly hurt clarity.

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 no output schema and an unconstrained body, the description is too sparse: it does not specify request payload fields, response format details, or how the returned ID should be consumed. An agent can infer intent but cannot reliably form a correct request.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already describes token and base_url, while the body is an open additionalProperties object. The description adds no guidance about what the body should contain, which limits practical call formation.

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 a specific action — creating a 'dictionary by pages' report and receiving an identifier for later interaction. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling report-state/UID retrieval endpoints, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 implies this is the initial step and that the returned ID is needed for subsequent report interactions, but it does not explicitly mention follow-up endpoints like get_tools_dictionary_by_pages_uid or state_uid. Usage context is present but left to inference.

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