metrika_logs_evaluate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so "Read-only" is largely redundant. The description does add genuinely useful constraints beyond the annotations: the date2-must-precede-today rule and the source naming conventions, which tell the agent when a call is invalid rather than just safe.

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?

Terse and front-loaded: the purpose and the ordering cue lead, with constraints trailing. Every clause is informative, though the trailing "Read-only" is redundant against the annotations and could be dropped.

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-format explanation is not required, and the workflow placement and date2/source rules are covered. Still, with five required parameters and zero schema descriptions, an agent has no guidance on date1, counter_id, or the fields array, leaving a real gap for a tool that must be called correctly before create.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it partially discharges it: source values (visits=ym:s:*, hits=ym:pv:*) and the date2 constraint are supplied. However, date1, counter_id, and fields receive no explanation anywhere, so the schema-side gap is only partly compensated.

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 (check) on a specific resource (whether a Metrika Logs export fits the counter quota) and adds the concrete outcome (possible, max days). It also names the sibling it precedes, metrika_logs_create, so the agent can place it in the workflow without opening other schemas.

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?

"Use before metrika_logs_create" gives an explicit trigger condition and names the alternative it gates. It does not contrast against metrika_logs_list/get, but the ordering guidance is unambiguous for the primary use case.

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