metrica.report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It notes 'raw output,' which is useful context about data format, but says nothing about read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, pagination (limit/offset exist), or output shape. Most behavioral traits remain 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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, which is structurally efficient. However, for a tool with 12 parameters and nested objects, it is severely under-specified rather than appropriately sized.

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?

Given 12 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It should explain what the raw report returns, how pagination works, and which parameters control the report, but it omits all of this.

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?

The description adds zero meaning beyond the schema, and with 12 parameters at only 42% schema description coverage, many parameters (sort, limit, offset, date_from, date_to, filters, accuracy) are undocumented in both places. It does not compensate for the coverage gap as required for a low-coverage schema.

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 verb ('Run') and resource ('Metrica report') and hints at raw output, but gives no scope details to distinguish it from sibling reporting tools like metrica.raw_call or metrica.hf.report_time_series. An agent cannot tell what kind of report or which data this tool produces beyond the generic name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many alternative report tools (metrica.raw_call, metrica.hf.report_*, direct.report, etc.). No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no indication of appropriate contexts are provided.

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