List Metrica counters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows the tool is read-only and results may change. The description adds the specific fields returned and the relationship to siblings, which provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations, but the core behavioral guarantees are covered by annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence covers purpose, resource, API type, and return fields; the second covers filtering. Each sentence adds unique value.

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 no output schema and 100% schema coverage for parameters, the description adequately explains the tool's functionality. It covers returned fields, usage with siblings, and filtering. Minor omission: pagination behavior beyond parameters is not discussed, but parameters themselves define offset and perPage. Overall sufficient for a list tool with strong annotations.

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% with clear parameter descriptions for offset, search, and perPage. The description echoes the filtering capability of search but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, 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 clearly states the action ('Lists ... counters') and resource ('Yandex Metrica counters'). It distinguishes sibling tools by specifying returned fields (id, name, site2) and that the id is used in get_statistics and list_goals. It also explains the search filter, leaving no ambiguity.

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 this tool is a precursor to siblings by stating the id is used with them. It explains filtering via search. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the sibling context and straightforward nature make the intended usage clear.

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