metrica.hf.report_time_series

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds allowed granularity values, which is useful context not present in annotations, but it does not describe output structure, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single sentence and front-loads the core purpose. 'Human-friendly' is somewhat vague filler, but the granularity list is compact and useful. It is appropriately sized for the information given, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

For a report tool with six parameters, low schema description coverage, and an output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain required inputs, default behaviors for account_id/counter_id, or the report's scope. An agent would need to inspect the schema and infer much of the necessary context.

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%, with just account_id documented in the schema. The description lists allowed granularity values (day/week/month/quarter/year), which helps for one parameter, but it leaves metric, date_from, date_to, and counter_id without semantic explanation. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 time series report and lists supported granularities (day/week/month/quarter/year), which gives a general sense of the tool. However, it does not specify what is being reported (which metric or counter) and does not distinguish itself from sibling report tools such as metrica.report. The purpose is implied but not sharply defined.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, and 'Human-friendly' is not actionable guidance. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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