Получение данных по времени

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the GET endpoint and the time-series behavior, but it does not describe response format, pagination, authentication needs, or limitations. It is consistent with the annotations and adds modest behavioral context beyond them.

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 compact but somewhat redundant: the first sentence restates the title, and the second partially repeats it before adding the useful example breakdown. The endpoint URL and documentation link are valuable, though a merged, front-loaded sentence would be tighter.

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 complex 22-parameter API with no output schema, the description gives the core purpose, endpoint, and documentation link, but does not describe what the returned data looks like or how the time grouping maps to API output. It is adequate for tool selection but not fully self-contained for a correct call without referring to docs.

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 the parameters are already well documented. The description adds conceptual context for the grouping behavior ('by days, weeks, months'), which relates to the group parameter, but it does not systematically explain parameters beyond what the schema already offers.

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 resource (Yandex Metrika statistics) and the key behavior: retrieving data with a time breakdown (by days, weeks, months). It identifies the query type for charts and dynamics tracking, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like metrika_stat_data.

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 explicitly says to use this query type for building charts and tracking dynamics, which gives a clear when-to-use context. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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