metrica.list_counters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it is a single sentence. It says nothing about authentication, scope, pagination, or what a counters listing contains, and does not clarify the read-only nature beyond the implicit 'list'.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 low-complexity list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the essentials are covered. But with zero annotations and an ambiguous relationship to sibling counter-listing tools, the definition is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for account_id or the raw params override, but nothing is missing that the schema does not already cover.

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 clear verb and resource (list Metrica counters), so the agent knows the basic operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling metrica.hf.list_accessible_counters or metrica.counter_info, leaving overlap unresolved.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as metrica.hf.list_accessible_counters or metrica.counter_info. The agent must infer selection 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.