keyso_post_tools_dictionary_ext_by_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait: this endpoint creates a report and returns an identifier needed for subsequent interaction, implying an async workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention whether the report is processed asynchronously, how long it might take, whether repeated calls create duplicate reports, or what side effects occur.

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 operation name and purpose. It includes useful operational details (method and path) without excessive padding. There is minor redundancy: 'создание отчета' appears in both the first line and the third sentence, but the overall structure is efficient and scannable.

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 report-creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent trying to use it correctly. It states that an identifier is returned and needed later, but it does not name the follow-up endpoint such as keyso_get_tools_dictionary_ext_by_page_uid, nor does it explain the expected request body structure. An agent would need to infer the full workflow from sibling tool names.

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 reported as 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The description does not clarify what should go in the 'body' object, which is empty and allows any additional properties. The token and base_url parameters are self-explanatory from the schema. Thus the description adds no real parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'создание отчета' (creating a report) for 'Расширение словаря по странице' (dictionary extension by page). It also states the mechanism and key result: the report is created and an identifier is returned for later interaction. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar report-creation tools like keyso_post_tools_dictionary_by_pages, so differentiation from siblings is only implicit.

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 alternatives such as keyso_post_tools_dictionary_by_pages or the related keyso_get_tools_dictionary_ext_by_page_uid. The description only explains what the endpoint does, not the conditions or scenario that select it. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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