yandex_metrica_list_counters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the access scope (token-limited visibility) and the shape of each returned item (id, name, site). It stops short of describing paging behavior even though page/per_page exist.

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: purpose and scope first, then the triggering condition, then the exclusion and handoff. Every sentence earns its place and the routing information is front-loaded.

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 usefully names the returned fields (id, name, site) and the visibility scope. Pagination and total-count behavior are left entirely to the schema, which is a minor gap for a paged list tool but not a blocking one.

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% with six fully documented parameters, three carrying enums, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions only the returned fields and adds no filtering, sorting, or paging semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (list counters) plus the access scope (those the configured token can reach) and the returned fields (id, name, site). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling yandex_metrica_get_counter, so an agent can distinguish the two 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?

Gives a positive trigger ("use when the user needs a counter id before any other query") and an explicit exclusion with the named alternative ("do not use this to read one counter's settings; call yandex_metrica_get_counter"). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the replacement tool are all present.

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