metrika_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: hard limits (<=12 metrics, 5 dimensions, 93 days), output formats, and sampling info being surfaced. Pagination behavior (max_pages/page_size) is not disclosed, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the main purpose and densely packed with limits, formats, and the alternative tool. Every clause carries information, though the terse punctuation-separated style is slightly harder to parse than prose.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with 12 params at 0% schema coverage, the omission of filters, sort, and pagination semantics leaves the definition short of what an agent needs to invoke it fully.

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 coverage is 0% across 12 params, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies compare_date1/compare_date2 semantics, the output format (JSON/CSV), and metric/dimension caps, but leaves filters, sort, max_pages, page_size, and date formats undocumented, so it only partially compensates.

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+resource ('One-call Metrika report') and enumerates what it returns (totals, abs/% deltas, sampling info, JSON or CSV). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling metrika_get_statistics for raw params, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use ('Use for period-over-period analysis') and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it ('raw params via metrika_get_statistics'). Nothing is left to inference about which of the two report tools to pick.

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