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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: that it validates against the live property, stores a proposal with a plain-English summary, changes nothing, and emits ⚠ lines the agent must surface before approval. These are action-guiding traits no annotation conveys.

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 key fact (nothing is changed) followed by the workflow and supported types, with no filler. Dense parenthetical clauses make the single paragraph slightly heavy, but each clause carries real information.

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 proposal-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle (propose → review → approve → apply/undo) and the change types accepted, which is everything an agent needs to call and follow up correctly.

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 100%, so the per-field semantics (property_id, account_id, counting, event_name, customer_id) are already fully documented in the schema, including the measurement-ID/tag note for create_ga4_property. The description's parentheticals largely restate that schema content, so the baseline 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 concrete verb (propose/check) and resource (Google Analytics setup changes) and immediately disambiguates with 'applies nothing', so an agent can distinguish it from apply_changes and undo_changes without reading a schema. It even enumerates the supported change types, making scope unambiguous.

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 workflow: check against the live property, store as a proposal, show the summary, apply only after user approval via apply_changes, with undo_changes to reverse. The when-to-use path and the correct sibling for the follow-up action are both named.

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