keywords.get

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is the keywords.get read operation and enumerates the kinds of returned data, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, response envelope, or status-value semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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 main sentence is front-loaded and efficient, and the documentation link provides practical follow-up. The second sentence 'Служба keywords, метод get (чтение)' is mildly redundant with the tool name and title, but it is short and does not introduce meaningful bloat.

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 read-only getter with 100% schema coverage and strong annotations, the description covers the selection-criteria concept and the main returned fields, while the schema fully documents the nested parameters. It lacks an explicit return-shape description, but that is partly a structural limitation since no output schema is provided.

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%, so the schema already documents Page, FieldNames, SelectionCriteria, and autotargeting settings in detail. The description only loosely maps returned content to field values and adds no additional parameter-level formatting or usage detail, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 operation ('Возвращает'), the resource ('ключевых фраз или автотаргетингов'), and the returned data categories (substitution values, status/state, stats, bids). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling direct_keywordbids_get, which also involves bids, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiating.

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 direct_keywordbids_get or other read tools. The sentence 'Служба keywords, метод get (чтение)' restates the read-only nature but does not provide selection criteria, prerequisites, or explicit exclusions.

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