metrika_logs_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the appended 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The value added is the enumeration of status values (created, processed, canceled), which hints at the lifecycle state space, but nothing is said about pagination, filtering, or result scope.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, with no filler. The trailing 'Read-only' is slight padding since annotations already state it, but overall it is tight.

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 not be described, and the single-parameter surface keeps the burden low. Still, for a read-only listing tool the description omits the counter_id meaning and any filtering/paging behavior, which is more than the annotations alone resolve.

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 schema documents only the name and type of counter_id. The description never explains what a counter_id is, where to obtain it (e.g., metrika_list_counters), or its format, leaving the sole required parameter's semantics to inference.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List Logs API requests of a counter') and enumerates the returned dimensions (status, parts), so an agent knows what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like metrika_logs_get or metrika_logs_download_part, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 to find request_id' gives one concrete use case, which is more than nothing. However, with five log-related siblings, it offers no when-not guidance and never names the alternative to pick for retrieving or downloading a specific request.

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