Yandex Metrika: list counters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful context about results being scoped to a connection and what fields come back, but omits pagination behavior despite a cursor parameter being present. Adds value, but not rich behavioral detail.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first defines the resource and its returned fields, the second states the follow-up action. The key hand-off instruction is placed at the end where it is easy to act on, and nothing is repeated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still summarizes the important fields, and it explains the required connection_id via the schema. The only meaningful gap is that a paginated list tool does not mention cursor-based paging or result limits, which matters for an agent deciding whether one call suffices.

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 cursor, search and connection_id are already documented in the schema (including the pointer to metrika_status for the connection ID). The description adds no syntax, matching rules, or default behavior beyond the schema, so 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Lists Yandex Metrika counters") and disambiguates the term with a plain gloss ("tracked websites") plus the exact fields returned (ID, name, site, time zone, access level). It does not explain how this differs from sibling tools like metrika_status or metrika_describe_counter, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clause "Pass the ID as counter_id to other tools" gives concrete workflow guidance: use this tool to discover counter IDs before calling report/describe tools. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer metrika_status for connection info), but the intended context is unambiguous.

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