metrika_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing about behavior: no auth/permission requirements, no pagination or rate-limit notes, no statement of what the response contains. The only behavioral hint is the implicit 'up to 200' limit, which lives in the schema, not the description.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by value catalogs that earn their place by telling the agent exactly which tokens are legal. It is somewhat list-heavy, but the lists are functional rather than filler.

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?

An 8-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema description coverage needs a much richer description. The metric/dimension catalogs help, but date-range formats, sort syntax, counter_id provenance, and the shape of the returned report are all absent, leaving the agent under-equipped to call it 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?

At 50% schema coverage, the description compensates by enumerating the valid metric and dimension values, which meaningfully clarifies the two most important parameters beyond the bare schema. It still leaves sort, date1/date2 format, and counter_id sourcing unexplained in both places, so the gap is only partly filled.

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 names the resource (Reporting API Metrika report) and its nature as an arbitrary/flexible report, then catalogs the exact metrics and dimensions it accepts. It is clearly distinguishable from metrika_summary, which it references for goal IDs, though it does not explicitly differentiate from metrika_compare or metrika_counters.

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?

It gives one concrete routing hint ('look up goal IDs via metrika_summary'), which is genuinely useful. However, it never states when to choose this arbitrary-report tool over the sibling metrika_compare or metrika_summary for reporting tasks, leaving the primary selection decision implied.

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