list_property_metadata

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the project context but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering behavior, or specific output characteristics. It does not contradict the annotations, but adds minimal behavioral value beyond them.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no filler or redundant information. Every word adds value.

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 has a moderate complexity with two parameters and an output schema, but the description leaves the event_name parameter unexplained and offers no usage guidance. While the output schema may cover return values, the incomplete parameter semantics and lack of alternatives make it only minimally 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only indirectly explains table_type via 'event or user' but completely fails to mention the optional event_name parameter, leaving its purpose and usage ambiguous. This is a significant gap given the schema provides no descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'event or user property metadata' for the configured project. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_event_metadata and the various query analysis tools, making its purpose 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_event_metadata or query tools. There are no explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage only from the tool name and description.

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