Сравнение - drill down

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive hints. The description adds behavioral context: for each grouping value the API returns two sets of metrics, and per-segment date ranges and filters can be set. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the response shape and configurability.

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 reasonably compact, starting with the core purpose and then elaborating with a concrete example of return structure. It includes the endpoint URL and documentation link but is not overly verbose. The structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 the tool has 27 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits crucial details about how the drilldown mechanism works (e.g., parent_id, tree traversal), pagination, error handling, and how the two metric sets are structured in the response. The documentation link is not accessible to the agent, so the description alone does not provide enough guidance for correct usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so all 27 parameters have description in the input schema. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific insight, only mentioning per-segment filters and dates in general terms. It does not compensate beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 this method combines Drill down and Comparison segment methods, and explicitly explains it returns two sets of metrics per grouping for comparing segments. It names the endpoint and distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by describing the combination behavior.

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 says 'using this method you can combine Drill down and Comparison' which gives clear context for when to use it relative to the separate tools. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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