Информация о счетчике

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveHint, so the main safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds the concrete GET endpoint and a documentation link, but no additional behavioral traits such as authentication, rate limits, or response structure.

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 text is short and includes the endpoint URL and documentation link, which are useful. However, the opening clause 'Информация о счетчике' is redundant with the second sentence 'Возвращает информацию об указанном счетчике'.

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 simple read-only get-with-id tool, the schema, annotations, endpoint URL, and documentation link are mostly sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The lack of an output schema and vague 'returns information' wording leave room for improvement, but the definition does not omit critical invocation requirements.

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%: counterId, field, and callback all have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Возвращает') and identifies a concrete resource ('информацию об указанном счетчике'), so an agent knows it is a get-by-id operation for a single counter. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling metrika_counter_list or the statistics tools, but the phrase 'указанном счетчике' signals the narrowed scope.

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 implies that this tool is for retrieving details of a specific counter, and the required counterId parameter reinforces that context. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state when to use metrika_counter_list instead, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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