metrika_logs_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so "Read-only" merely repeats structured data and earns no credit. What the description does add beyond the annotations is the polling semantics ('poll until status=processed'), which is genuinely useful asynchronous-workflow context.

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 key routing instruction packed in via semicolon and inline code formatting. No filler, though the density borders on cryptic for a tool with undocumented parameters.

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 critical poll-then-download workflow is covered. However, with 0% schema coverage the two required identifiers are left unexplained, and nothing is said about request lifetime or what statuses other than processed mean.

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% for both required parameters. The description implies request_id identifies a Logs API request and counter_id a counter, but it never explains their format, relation, or whether counter_id must belong to the same account. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource (one Logs API request) and what it returns (status and parts), and names the follow-up sibling `metrika_logs_download_part`. The verb is implicit rather than stated outright, but an agent can distinguish it from metrika_logs_list and metrika_logs_create.

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 a concrete workflow: poll until status=processed, then call `metrika_logs_download_part`. That names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It stops short of saying when not to use this tool or what to do on failure/expired requests.

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