Run Metrica report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Read-only' adds no new behavioral information. The description mentions the endpoint and high-level behavior but does not disclose insights like default limits, pagination behavior, or response format beyond what the schema already provides. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction, but adds limited transparency value.

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 two sentences: the first sentence states the core functionality, the second provides a key prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the most important information, avoids redundancy, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (14 parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description is adequate because the schema thoroughly documents each parameter. It adds essential context with the endpoint and the get_metadata-advice. It could ideally mention what the response looks like, but the schema's fullResponse parameter and the tool's name imply a tabular report, so completeness is high.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates what metrics, dimensions, and filters do, which is already in the schema. It does not add extra semantic detail such as the 'protect context' rationale for limits or the namespace mixing restrictions that the schema descriptions 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?

The description clearly states the tool queries a Yandex Metrica table report (/stat/v1/data), naming key operations (metrics, dimensions, date range, filter, sort). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_timeseries and run_drilldown, which target different report shapes.

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 clear context by instructing to use get_metadata first to discover valid ids and counters, and labels the tool as read-only. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the guidance about prerequisites and the tool's scope is sufficient for a clear context without exclusions.

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