keyso_post_tools_keywords_by_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a report and returns an identifier, but it does not mention whether the operation is asynchronous, what the response format is, whether it requires prior data, or any side effects. The description is minimal and leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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. The method and path are repeated from the tool name/schema, which is redundant, but the description is still efficient and not bloated.

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 that creates a report and returns an ID, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected body payload, whether the operation is asynchronous, how to poll for results, or what the returned ID looks like. The sibling tools suggest a pattern of state/uid polling, but this description does not connect to that pattern.

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 100%, but the schema parameters are generic (body, token, base_url) with no meaningful detail about the body structure. The description adds that the tool creates a report and returns an ID, but it does not explain what fields the body should contain. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema covers parameter names, but the description does not compensate for the empty body 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 states a specific action: creating a report ('Создание отчета') for page queries ('Список запросов страниц') and returning an identifier for later interaction. This is clear enough to distinguish it from many sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 the tool is used to create a report and obtain an ID, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like keyso_post_tools_keywords_by_list or keyso_post_tools_dictionary_by_pages. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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