metrica.hf.report_utm_campaigns

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 and the bar is lower. The description adds almost nothing beyond that — 'Human-friendly' vaguely hints at a simplified response shape, but there is no mention of which counter/account must be resolvable, defaults, or report granularity.

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 the brevity here is under-specification rather than economy — the 'Human-friendly:' prefix consumes budget without adding information.

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, but for a 5-parameter, zero-required report tool in a family of similar reports the definition is far too thin: no date semantics, no counter/account resolution rules, and no guidance on how results relate to the sibling join/UTM tools.

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 only 20% (just account_id), yet the description explains none of the five parameters: date_from/date_to formats, the meaning of limit, or when counter_id is required versus inferred from account_id are all absent. The tool is effectively uncallable-with-confidence from the description for 4 of 5 params.

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 phrase 'UTM campaigns report' identifies a verb (report) and a resource (UTM campaigns), and implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling metrica.hf.report_geo / report_devices / report_landing_pages reports by attributing dimension. However, the 'Human-friendly:' prefix is filler and the description never states scope, granularity, or what a UTM campaign grouping actually means, leaving the purpose only minimally clear.

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?

No when-to-use guidance whatsoever: nothing says when to prefer this over metrica.report, metrica.hf.report_time_series, or join.hf.direct_vs_metrica_by_utm, all of which are plausible neighbours for the same traffic-attribution question. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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