yandex_metrica_list_logs_requests

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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds a genuine scoping detail — that results span every lifecycle status from created to cleaned — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size. Useful incremental context, not rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the purpose plus scope is front-loaded before the routing instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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?

A simple read-only list tool with full annotation coverage, a fully described single parameter, and no output schema to explain. The description covers what it returns conceptually (all export requests across all statuses) and routes the agent to the sibling for single-request polling, leaving no blocking gap.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents counter_id at 100% coverage ('Yandex Metrica counter (tag) ID'). The description's phrase 'on a Yandex Metrica counter' restates the schema without adding format, range, or lookup guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 every Logs API export request on a Yandex Metrica counter') and adds the scope of statuses covered, from created through cleaned. An agent can distinguish this from yandex_metrica_get_logs_request and the other logs siblings without opening any 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 an explicit positive trigger ('when the user wants to see existing exports or find a request id') and an explicit exclusion ('Do not use this to poll a single request') that names the correct alternative tool and the key it needs. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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