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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the trailing "Read-only" is redundant restatement. The description does add that results include custom definitions and key events, which is useful content context, but says nothing about pagination or result caps despite a limit parameter.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded ahead of the filtering details, with no wasted clauses. The closing "Read-only" overlaps the annotations and could be dropped, but the overall structure is efficient and scannable.

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 no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. With 100% schema coverage, 1 required parameter and the description confirming the discovery purpose, an agent has what it needs; only explicit sibling 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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by specifying that the search term is matched against the API name, display name and category — detail the schema omits. It also confirms the kind and custom-definition filters, adding a modest amount of meaning over the structured fields.

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 and resource: find the exact API names of dimensions and metrics a property can report on, and enumerates what is included (custom dimensions, custom metrics, key events). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like run_report or list_properties, relying on the agent to infer that this is the discovery step.

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?

"Use this to find the exact API names" implies the discovery-before-reporting workflow, and the filter options suggest refinement scenarios. However, no when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are provided, so the agent must infer the relationship to run_report and compare_report on its own.

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