roasr_yandex_goals

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

With no annotations, the description fully handles behavioral disclosure. It explicitly declares read-only, explains the semantic meaning of empty goals (conversions cannot be attributed), warns about the error condition for non-Yandex accounts, and clarifies that this is current configuration rather than a time series. This is comprehensive for a read-only tool.

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 four short sentences, front-loaded with essential scope and safety information ('Yandex Direct only, read-only'). Every sentence adds unique value: scope, purpose, empty-goal interpretation, and error behavior. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, scope, interpretation of empty goals, and error conditions. It is missing an explicit description of the return format (e.g., a list of goal names/IDs), but since this is a config-read tool and the semantics are clear, it is mostly complete. The lack of output schema makes a slight gap, but not critical.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds the context that accountId must be a Yandex account and that omitting it means 'all Yandex accounts', but this is already in the schema. No additional syntax or formats are needed beyond this.

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 retrieves which Yandex.Metrika goals are selected for an account, with a specific implied action (listing/getting). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'current config, not a metric series,' which sets it apart from metrics-focused tools.

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?

It explicitly states 'Yandex Direct only, read-only' and provides a key caveat about empty goals meaning conversions are untrustworthy. It also warns about errors for non-Yandex accounts. It doesn't name specific alternatives, but the 'not a metric series' phrase implies when not to use it.

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