metrika_validate_offline_conversions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/local (openWorld=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that processing is local with no API call and that it returns a CSV preview plus a confirmation_hash, which is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations; it stops short of auth/rate-limit detail.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb first and details consolidated into a tight parenthetical. Dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 (though it helpfully mentions the preview and hash). For a 4-param validation tool with rich annotations, the main gap is that top-level parameters like counter_id and conversion_type are never addressed.

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%, so the description carries the parameter burden, and it does enumerate the row-level fields (Target, DateTime, UserId/ClientId/Yclid/PurchaseId, Price, Currency). But those are nested item fields, not the declared top-level parameters (counter_id, conversions, conversion_type, comment), so several required/optional params remain undocumented.

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 ('Validate offline conversion rows') and specifies the validation is done 'locally', listing the concrete fields checked. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling metrika_upload_offline_conversions via 'No API call' but never names that alternative, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Clear context is given: validation happens locally with no API call, and the returned confirmation_hash signals the intended follow-up (upload) workflow. However, it never explicitly names metrika_upload_offline_conversions as the next step or states when to prefer this over the upload/list siblings.

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