ga4_llm_referrals

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

No annotations provided, but the description explains the limit behavior (totals reflect only rows returned) and that the output includes total and per-source breakdown. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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 concise (about 5 lines) with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by an organized Args section. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description explains return values and the limit behavior. It covers the key aspects for an aggregation tool. Could mention country filter behavior (exact match?), but overall 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 coverage, the description compensates by adding an Args section explaining each parameter's meaning, format (date), and defaults. This adds significant value beyond the schema types.

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 it aggregates GA4 traffic from LLM platforms, listing specific platforms (Perplexity, ChatGPT, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling GA4 tools that handle other traffic breakdowns.

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 implies usage for LLM referral data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No guidance on when not to use or references to similar sibling tools.

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