metrica.hf.list_accessible_counters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond a vague 'Human-friendly' label. It does not explain what makes a counter 'accessible', whether account_id scoping changes the result set, or anything about authorization.

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?

It is short, but the 'Human-friendly:' prefix is filler that consumes space without informing tool selection. The sentence is front-loaded but under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 annotations cover safety. However, for a counter-listing tool surrounded by metrica.list_counters and other hf-list siblings, the absence of any scoping or distinction detail leaves the agent unable to decide when this is the right call.

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 coverage is 100% and the account_id description already explains it resolves to Direct Client-Login and Metrica counter defaults. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('list accessible counters'), which is more than a bare tautology, but 'accessible' is undefined and there is no differentiation from the sibling metrica.list_counters or metrica.hf.counter_summary. An agent cannot tell from this text why it should prefer this tool over those.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative. The existence of metrica.list_counters and metrica.hf.counter_summary makes routing ambiguity a real risk, and the description does nothing to resolve it.

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