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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context—and it does, disclosing that comments from the original file are dropped and that a last-push timestamp is included. That is useful behavioral detail an agent would not otherwise know.

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 lean sentences, front-loaded with the resource identity and its contents. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the return-format detail could be tightened.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description specifies content shape (events, props, funnels), return format (YAML), and the comment-stripping caveat. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only explicit alternative-tool routing is missing.

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 100%, so the site parameter's optionality and accepted formats are already fully documented. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (tracking plan / analytics.yaml), and enumerates its contents (events with descriptions and props, and funnels). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_funnel or update_tracking_plan, though it doesn't explicitly name the closest 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 never states when to use this tool versus update_tracking_plan or get_funnel, nor any prerequisite for retrieving the plan. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'stored'.

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