get_yandex_direct_experiment

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral details beyond the basic action. It does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or data handling, leaving significant gaps.

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 a single sentence, making it concise, but it omits crucial information that could be provided without increasing length significantly. It is under-specified rather than efficiently packed.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description lacks context about the data returned (e.g., is it a single value or time series). It does not cover error cases or limitations, making it incomplete for a tool with specific parameters.

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 schema covers both parameters with basic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is already in the input schema, so it defaults to baseline 3.

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 'Get bounce rate for specific Yandex Direct A/B experiments,' specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'bounce rate' for experiments. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that fetch different metrics, but does not explicitly contrast with similar tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over others, no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., experiment must be active), and no mention of when not to use it. The description provides zero usage context.

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