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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait — the 7-day fallback window when dates are omitted — but says nothing about permissions, counter/project binding, data freshness, or limits on the date range.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the fallback behavior is front-loaded right after the purpose. It is efficient, though it spends its limited space on a single default rather than on differentiation.

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 explained, and parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, in a namespace crowded with overlapping Metrika report tools, the absence of any disambiguation leaves an agent unable to confidently choose this tool.

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 date_to, date_from, and project_id, including accepted relative values. The description adds the meaningful default-window behavior for omitted dates, which the schema's null defaults do not convey, but nothing beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieving visit data from Yandex.Metrika. This is clearer than a bare name restatement, but with a dozen sibling get_metrika_* tools (sources_summary, pages_report, data_by_time), it never distinguishes which report this one returns or when it is the right choice among them.

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 only usage information is the implicit date default; there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_metrika_data_by_time, get_metrika_sources_summary, or the other Metrika tools. No prerequisites (e.g., a connected Metrika counter) are mentioned.

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