metrika_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well: it warns about sampling even when rows appear complete, explains that differences use provider totals rather than summed partial rows, and notes that missing values stay null. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but discloses the most important quirks for a reporting tool.

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?

The description is only three sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value: what it reports, how pagination/sampling behaves, and how comparisons are calculated. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite an output schema, the tool has 12 parameters, 4 required, and no schema descriptions. The description omits essential invocation details: date formats, required parameters, how comparison dates are specified, and how filters/dimensions/sort are expressed. The caveats are useful but not sufficient for correct use.

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%, and the description does not explain individual parameters such as counter_id, date1/date2, compare_date1/compare_date2, metrics, dimensions, filters, sort, max_pages, or page_size. It hints at period comparison and bounded rows, but an agent would still lack concrete guidance for the 12-parameter 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?

The description states a specific action ('Report or compare two Metrika periods') with concrete scope, including sampling, exact totals, and bounded JSON/CSV rows. It is clear enough to distinguish this from many siblings, though it does not explicitly name metrika_get_statistics as a close alternative.

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 provides operational caveats but no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like metrika_get_statistics or metrika_list_counters. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or explicitly when not to use it.

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