metrika_get_offline_conversion_upload

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so 'Read-only' in the description adds nothing. The genuinely additive detail is the up-to-3-hour processing window, which tells the agent to expect a pending/async state rather than an error.

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 tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the latency caveat appended. The trailing 'Read-only' is redundant against the annotations and could be dropped without loss.

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 output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the latency hint covers the main async caveat. The gap is parameter meaning: for a tool keyed by two required ids, the description contributes nothing about them.

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 0% and the description says nothing about counter_id or uploading_id. The names are somewhat self-describing, but with two required identifiers undocumented in both schema and prose, an agent gets no confirmation of which counter or upload id is expected.

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 (get status) and resource (one offline conversion upload), which cleanly separates it from sibling list/upload/validate tools in the same family. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the resource name alone.

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?

The parenthetical 'processing can take up to 3 hours' implies this is a polling endpoint to use after an upload, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over metrika_list_offline_conversion_uploads or what to do on a still-processing result.

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