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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only says 'get a list.' It does not confirm this is a read-only operation, does not explain that results are scoped to a single project_id, and does not mention the effect of use_deleted on the returned set.

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste and the resource front-loaded. It is arguably under-sized for a tool with no annotations, but nothing in it is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and both parameters are fully documented. However, with zero annotations the description leaves the safety profile and the relationship to the goals_conversion sibling unaddressed, which is a real gap for an agent choosing between Metrika tools.

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%, with both project_id and use_deleted documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific verb and resource: retrieve the list of goals from Yandex.Metrica. It is clearly distinct from the sibling get_metrika_goals_conversion, but the description itself does nothing to draw that distinction, leaving the differentiation to be inferred from names alone.

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 statement of when to call this tool versus get_metrika_goals_conversion or the other Metrika reporting siblings. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is a metadata/reference listing call, likely a prerequisite for the conversion tool.

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