Список целей

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about being a GET request and provides documentation link, but does not disclose behavior beyond that, such as pagination limits, response structure, or error conditions. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise, with three sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then provides the API endpoint and a documentation link. The documentation link could be considered additional but is useful for deeper context. No wasted words.

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 that this is a read-only list operation with a simple schema (3 parameters, 1 required) and annotations cover safety, the description is adequately complete. It does not explain return values, but without an output schema, agents may wonder about the response format. However, the documentation link compensates slightly. It is not overly complex.

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 each parameter is already described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does mention the resource (goals) that the counterId refers to. The description does not elaborate on the callback parameter's usage or the useDeleted flag beyond schema defaults, but schema is sufficient.

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 states that it returns information about goals of a counterched in a clear verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like metrika_segment_list or metrika_counter_get, which could be confused for similar list operations. The inclusion of the API endpoint adds specificity but less 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 description implies usage when you need to list goals for a specific counter, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like the counterId being valid or user permissions. No explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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