metrica.raw_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It never states that the 'method' parameter permits destructive delete/put calls, that account_id resolves to Direct Client-Login credentials, or anything about side effects or rate limits. 'Raw' hints at unfiltered access but gives no real behavioral context.

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 filler, which is efficient. For a 7-parameter nested raw API passthrough it is arguably thinner than the complexity warrants, keeping it just under a 5.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, plus nested objects and a mutation-capable method parameter, mean the description must do much more than one line. It omits which 'api' value to pick, how params/data interact, and any warning about write operations, leaving the agent under-equipped.

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 every one of the seven parameters is already documented in the schema and the description adds no syntax, format, or cross-parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Raw Metrica API call') and tags it as an '(escape hatch)', so the agent understands it is a low-level passthrough. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as metrica.report or the parallel direct.raw_call/audience.raw_call, so it stops short of a 5.

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 '(escape hatch)' label implies the tool should be used only as a fallback when no dedicated tool fits, which is meaningful implied guidance. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternatives are given, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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