yandex_metrica_evaluate_logs_request

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, but the description adds a trait they do not capture: this is a dry-run that performs no request creation. It also hints at output content ('how many days fit the quota'), useful given there is no output schema. It stops short of describing error behavior or quota thresholds, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 with zero filler: the dry-run clarification is front-loaded, then the positive trigger, then the explicit exclusion. Every sentence carries routing or behavioral information.

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?

With no output schema, the description needs to signal what comes back, and it does via 'how many days fit the quota' and the feasibility verdict. Combined with annotations that cover the safety profile and a fully documented schema, the definition is nearly complete; only the precise response shape remains implicit.

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 all five parameters, including enum values for source and field formats. The description only restates 'dates, source, and fields' without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate; counter_id is not mentioned at all.

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 gives a specific verb (check/evaluate) and resource (Yandex Metrica Logs API export) plus the exact scope ('given dates, source, and fields, without creating a request'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling yandex_metrica_create_logs_request, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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 states the positive trigger ('user wants to know if a raw export is possible and how many days fit the quota') and an explicit exclusion ('Do not use this to start the export'), naming the alternative to call instead. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered with the fallback path spelled out.

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