Список счётчиков Метрики

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

The description discloses that the tool returns counters with id, name, and site2, and that it supports a search filter. It does not contradict the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). It does not mention rate limits or errors, but for a simple read operation this is acceptable. The behavior is transparent enough.

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 and front-loaded, stating the main purpose in the first clause. It includes relevant supplementary information (id usage in other tools) without unnecessary verbosity. The structure is clear and free of redundancy.

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 simple read operation, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (counters with specific fields) and mentions the search filter, which is the main functionality. Pagination is implicit via the schema's offset and perPage parameters. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the description of the returned fields. It is adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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 description adds little beyond the schema: the search parameter is described in the schema as a substring filter, and the description repeats that. The mention of counter fields (id, name, site2) is about the response, not parameters. Since schema coverage is 100% and descriptions are provided, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 tool returns Yandex Metrika counters available to the token, and it specifically mentions that the id field is used in related tools (get_statistics and list_goals), which helps differentiate it from those tools. The verb 'Returns' is precise, and the resource is unambiguous.

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 by stating that the id from counters is used in get_statistics and list_goals, suggesting this tool is a prerequisite for those operations. It also explains the search parameter for filtering. However, it does not explicitly state 'when to use this tool vs alternatives' in direct terms, but the context is sufficient.

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