keyso_post_tools_domains_batch

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

With no annotations, the description must carry safety and behavior disclosure, but it only restates the HTTP method and path and gives an example URL. It does not say whether the call is synchronous or asynchronous, what side effects occur, what authentication is needed, or what a response looks like. The POST method and 'analysis' wording weakly imply a non-read operation, so it is not entirely blank.

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 text is short and front-loaded, with method, path, and example in a scannable layout. There is no filler or repetition beyond the vague 'Пакетный анализ' label, and the structure is efficient for an API endpoint stub.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and its `body` is an open object, so the description needs to explain what to send and what to expect; it does neither. It provides enough route and query information to attempt a call, but not enough to use the tool correctly beyond a guess.

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 example `?base=msk` adds a concrete value for `base`, and `token`/`base_url` already have explicit semantics in the schema. However, `body` is only described as 'JSON body' with an open schema, so the description adds no meaning for the most important parameter.

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 opens with only 'Пакетный анализ' ('batch analysis'), a generic label that restates the 'batch' part of the tool name without saying what is analyzed or what the endpoint produces. The path '/tools/domains-batch' adds a resource hint, but the description does not differentiate this from siblings such as keyso_post_report_simple_links_domains_batch.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The example request shows how to call the endpoint, but the agent is never told when to choose this tool over the many sibling report/tool endpoints, nor what input conditions select it. Nothing is misleading, but almost all usage context is left to inference.

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