Список сегментов для счетчика

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveHint, so the description's main added value is the API-created scope and the GET endpoint. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not add details like pagination, response shape, or authorization requirements.

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 definition is short, readable, and front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the title, but the second sentence plus the endpoint and documentation links provide useful, compact context with minimal waste.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent GET operation with rich annotations, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the resource, the counter scope, and the endpoint. The lack of output schema details is mitigated by the tool's low complexity.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage: counterId is documented as 'Идентификатор счетчика.' The description references the counter but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 a specific verb, 'Возвращает список', and identifies the exact resource: API-created segments belonging to a given counter. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as metrika_goal_list or metrika_counter_list.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: when you need API-created segments for a specific counter. The qualifier 'созданных с помощью API' acts as an implicit exclusion of manually created segments, though the description does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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