metrika_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 fully covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavior detail — that access flows through a server-side read-only credential — which is useful auth context but is the only thing it contributes beyond structured fields.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is as short as it can be while still naming the resource, though at this length it borders on under-specification rather than true 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?

Given an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description need not explain return values. Still, for a zero-param listing call it omits any scope, pagination, or result-size context, leaving an agent to discover the shape of the listing by trial.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which by the rubric sets a baseline of 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify, so nothing is lost.

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 ('List') and resource ('Metrika counters'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as metrika_list_goals or metrika_get_statistics, so an agent must infer the difference from names 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 description gives no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative. The phrase 'server-side read-only credential' hints at an environment constraint but says nothing about when this tool is the right pick over the other metrika_* tools.

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