metrika_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the read-only, aggregate nature of the output and the metric set returned. It says nothing about authentication requirements, the default counter fallback (left to the schema), rate limits, or whether data is pre-aggregated/sampled — gaps that matter for a metrics tool.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the payload, with no filler. It is efficient, though the metric enumeration makes it slightly list-heavy rather than optimally structured.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned metrics, which is the key information an agent needs. It stops short of describing the response shape or per-goal breakdown format, but for a 3-parameter read tool with sensible defaults it is largely sufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents date1, date2, and counter_id including the '30daysAgo'/'yesterday' syntax and the default-counter behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific resource ('Сводка Яндекс Метрики за период') and enumerates the exact metrics returned (visits, visitors, bounces, duration, depth, all goals), so an agent knows precisely what this tool produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like metrika_report or metrika_compare, leaving the agent to guess which one to pick for a summary vs. a detailed report.

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 rather than metrika_report or metrika_compare, nor any statement of prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'за период' only loosely implies a date-bounded aggregate query, which is inferred rather than stated.

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