roasr_yandex_breakdown

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only nature, the error condition for non-Yandex accounts, and the data content for each dimension. While it doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, it provides solid behavioral context beyond just 'gets breakdowns'.

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 dense but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the key scope ('Yandex Direct only, read-only'), then maps dimensions to their content, states the error condition, and provides alternatives. No redundant phrases; the length is justified by the complexity.

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 moderate complexity (6 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers platform restriction, safety, dimension semantics, error cases, and sibling alternatives. It does not explicitly describe return format, but the dimension descriptions convey what data to expect. Could mention aggregation/row structure, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, but the description adds meaningful semantics for the 'dimension' parameter by elaborating on each enum value (e.g., 'search_queries (search terms with spend/conversions)'), and clarifies accountId's Yandex-only requirement. This goes beyond the schema's terse enum descriptions, though other parameters are left to the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns Yandex Direct breakdowns for specific dimensions (search_queries, keywords, ads, bidding), with detailed explanations of what each dimension contains. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting 'same data as roasr_yandex_search_queries' and 'same data as roasr_yandex_ads', and clarifies it is Yandex-only.

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?

Explicitly says when to use alternatives: 'For campaign/adset totals or device/region/audience/placement splits on a Yandex account, use roasr_metrics_campaigns / roasr_metrics_breakdown instead'. Also warns 'Errors if accountId points to a non-Yandex account', giving a clear exclusion. This provides strong guidance on when to select this tool vs siblings.

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