Yandex Metrika: describe counter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the payload includes goals with IDs and a warning that goal names can repeat, which affects how downstream calls must be made. No return shape or failure modes are described, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded before the workflow hint and the ID caveat. Every sentence carries actionable 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is returned conceptually, when to call it, and the goal-ID caution. Only the relationship to sibling tools like metrika_list_counters is left implicit.

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%, with counter_id and connection_id both documented and pointing at their source tools (metrika_list_counters, metrika_status). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying a single counter is targeted, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Shows') and a precise resource scope: counter settings (time zone, status, access) plus its goals with IDs. This is clearly distinguishable from metrika_list_counters, though the description doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides a concrete usage trigger: 'Call before goal reports.' That tells an agent exactly where in a workflow this fits. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. metrika_list_counters for enumeration vs. this for detail), so it's clear context without explicit exclusions.

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