keyso_post_tools_suggest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the method, path, and general purpose; it does not mention authorization requirements, what the response contains, whether the call is synchronous, or what the body should include. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the side effects and data flow.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only the essential context: method, path, and an example URL. Every line earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 lacks an output schema and annotations, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the request body contract, expected response format, or how to pass the search query. For a POST endpoint that collects suggestions, the lack of body guidance is a major completeness gap.

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 high, so the baseline is 3. However, the most important parameter, 'body', is described only as 'JSON body' with no properties, making it effectively opaque. Token and base_url are clear enough from their descriptions, but the description adds nothing about what should actually be sent in the body.

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 the tool's function: collecting Yandex search suggestions. It also provides the HTTP method, exact path, and an example URL, making the resource unambiguous. It distinguishes well from the many sibling tools because no other tool is described as a Yandex suggestion collector.

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 does not explain when to use this tool versus any alternative, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is that it collects search suggestions, but there is no explicit guidance about the request body, required query parameters, or when another tool might be more appropriate.

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