metrica.hf.report_geo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds only that this is a human-friendly geo wrapper; it says nothing about default date ranges, limit behavior, required counter/account defaults, or row granularity that an agent would need to call it confidently.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is terse rather than bloated; the brevity is a limitation of content, not of structure.

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?

With six parameters, 0 required, 17% schema coverage, and no output-schema burden, the description should at minimum clarify which parameters are needed and how defaults resolve. An output schema exists, so return values are excused, but the input side is left largely unexplained.

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 only 17% (account_id alone), so the description must compensate, yet it explains none of level, limit, date_from/date_to, or counter_id. The parenthetical '(country/city)' loosely hints at level values but does not define the parameter or its accepted options.

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?

Names a specific report type and its breakdown dimension: a geo report by country/city. It is distinguishable from siblings like report_devices or report_landing_pages at a glance, though it does not explicitly say how it differs from report_time_series or the generic metrica.report.

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 use this tool versus the generic metrica.report, metrica.raw_call, or the other hf report wrappers. The word 'Human-friendly' implies a convenience wrapper but gives no selection criteria or prerequisites.

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