metrica.hf.report_landing_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description says nothing about date-range semantics, pagination, aggregation granularity, or what 'human-friendly' formatting actually means, leaving behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Every word earns its place only because there is so little content to begin with.

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, but for a five-parameter report tool with 20% parameter coverage the description is far too thin. Essential context about date filtering, result limits, and counter/account resolution is missing.

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?

Four of the five parameters (limit, date_to, date_from, counter_id) have no schema description, and the description adds no meaning for any of them. With only 20% schema coverage, the description is expected to compensate but instead contributes nothing.

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 concrete resource (landing pages report) so the agent knows the general subject, but it essentially restates the tool name and adds no verb nuance or scope. It does not distinguish itself from sibling reports such as metrica.hf.report_utm_campaigns, report_geo, or report_devices.

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 routing between this report and the many other Metrica report tools. The 'Human-friendly' prefix hints at a wrapper over a raw API but never tells the agent when to prefer it.

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