events_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured fields. The description adds the audit framing as context but discloses nothing about result shape, ordering, pagination, or how the limit interacts with counts. Adequate but thin against an already-covered safety profile.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('count of every event that fired') followed by the practical follow-up step. No filler 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the alternative-tool routing is helpful. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no mention of the date window or limit semantics, the definition leaves meaningful operational gaps for calling the tool 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 0% and the description never mentions any of the four parameters. It is silent on property_id, limit (default 50), and the date_start/date_end defaults ('7daysAgo'/'today'), leaving the agent to infer date-window semantics and whether limit truncates results — a real gap for a counting tool.

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 states a specific action and resource: counting every event that fired, framed as an audit of measurement coverage. It distinguishes itself from the query/report siblings by being a summary-count rather than a detailed breakdown, though it does not explicitly disambiguate against conversions_summary or web_vitals_summary.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: compare with list_key_events to find key events that never fire. That names a concrete alternative and the condition that motivates it. It stops short of saying when NOT to use this tool or what other siblings to prefer for deeper analysis.

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