Список целей счётчика

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds chaining context (Management API, downstream metric names) but says nothing about the return shape, pagination, or whether all goals are returned — with no output schema, that is a real gap.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then downstream usage, then the parameter prerequisite. Every sentence carries information, though the embedded metric-name syntax makes it slightly dense.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, why the caller needs it, and where the counterId comes from. Only the exact contents of the returned goal objects are left unexplained.

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 single counterId parameter has 100% schema coverage, including its own description pointing to list_counters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates the requiredness and provenance but adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the goals/conversions configured on a Metrica counter via the Management API. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming list_counters as the source of counterId and get_statistics as the consumer of the returned goal IDs.

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?

Gives clear context: call it when you need goal identifiers to build conversion metrics like ym:s:goal<id>reaches in get_statistics, and get counterId from list_counters first. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative listing tool, but the routing to both sibling tools is unambiguous.

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