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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which signal safe read-only operations. The description adds that reports are 'native read-only' and directs users to adkit_help for deeper behavioral details, but does not explicitly mention connection complexities or multi-login scenarios, though the schema's connectionId parameter implies that. Overall, strong alignment with annotations plus value addition.

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 description is two sentences with no waste. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately directs to adkit_help for further information. This is concise and structurally effective, though it could be slightly more self-contained by including a brief summary of the two actions.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with nested objects and two actions, but the schema is fully documented (100% coverage) and the description references adkit_help for advanced details. With no output schema, the description doesn't need to cover return values. The description is sufficient for basic invocation, but for advanced report building it relies on external help, which is a slight gap.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description does not add new semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides (e.g., that 'report' is the native GA4 runReport body). Therefore, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the schema carries the heavy lifting and the description adds minimal extra meaning.

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?

The description clearly states the tool reads GA4 properties and runs native read-only reports, with a specific reference to adkit_help for more details. It names the two actions (list_properties and run_report) which distinguishes it from other adkit tools that are not GA4-related.

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 explicitly instructs to call adkit_help for actions and report fields, providing a clear path for when to seek more information. It differentiates itself from siblings by being GA4-specificming, and the schema's action descriptions (e.g., list properties vs run report) offer additional usage context.

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