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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, open-world write operation. The description adds useful behavior: non-workspace property IDs are rejected, counting_method accepts two values, and the returned key-event ID must be retained for deletion. It does not discuss authorization or duplicate behavior, but the annotation baseline lowers that burden.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the details about counting_method, property_id, workspace, and returned ID each carry useful information. The response-field list is slightly dense but contains no obvious 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 fully explained, though the description adds useful guidance to preserve the returned key-event ID. With 0% schema description coverage, the missing explanation of event_name and any duplicate/key-event creation behavior keeps it short of fully complete.

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 description must carry parameter meaning. It explains property_id constraints, counting_method values, workspace optionality, and the returned name, but it does not explain the required event_name parameter beyond its field name.

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 ('anlegen') and resource ('GA4 Key Event (Conversion)'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes the resource from the deletion sibling by explaining that the returned name should be kept for ga4_delete_key_event.

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?

Provides key prerequisites: property_id must be the workspace's GA4 property or it is rejected, and workspace is optional only when a single workspace exists. It names ga4_delete_key_event as a follow-up but does not explicitly compare with ga4_list_key_events or state when not to create a key event.

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