metrika_get_statistics

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only addition is the word "bounded", implying a limited/constrained request, but it never explains what the bound is (date range? row cap? quota?). Minor added value over the annotations.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, one vague clause is far too little for a tool whose only parameter is an undocumented free-form object, so the terseness is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 do not need explaining, which lightens the burden. But the tool has a nested, entirely undocumented params object and an unqualified name overlapping with metrika_report, and the description addresses neither. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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?

There is a single required parameter, "params", which is a bare object with additionalProperties:true and zero property definitions or descriptions (0% schema coverage). The description says nothing about what keys the params object accepts. The agent is left with no information whatsoever on how to construct the call, so the description fails to compensate for the opaque schema.

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?

It states a verb and resource ("Run ... Metrika reporting request") and qualifies it as read-only and bounded, so the general domain is clear. But it never says which statistics or metrics are returned, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from the obvious sibling metrika_report (or direct_get_statistics). An agent cannot tell from this sentence which reporting tool to pick.

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?

"Bounded" hints at a constrained scope but gives no explicit condition for when to use this instead of metrika_report, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no routing guidance at all despite several reporting siblings.

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