GA4 ecommerce event coverage

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so credit goes to what the description adds: the explicit cost of '(3 requests)' — meaningfully high for a read tool — and the concrete scope of what is inspected (tag state active/missing/paused plus trigger existence). It stops short of saying whether the check runs against the workspace or the live container version.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core question, then the optional-events modifier. Minor waste: the '(3 requests)' parenthetical is spliced awkwardly mid-sentence and the 'view_item_list … purchase, refund' ellipsis is slightly loose, but nothing is padded.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is correctly omitted, and the diagnostic scope is well covered. However, for a 3-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, gaps remain: container identifier format, workspace_id default behavior, and whether results reflect the workspace draft or the live version.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it only explains one of three parameters. include_optional_events is clarified (adds view_promotion, select_promotion, add_to_wishlist beyond the 11), but container — required, and ambiguous between ID and path — and workspace_id (nullable, default null, no stated behavior) are left entirely undefined.

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?

Precisely names the resource (the 11 GA4 ecommerce events plus custom-event triggers) and the exact question answered: which have an active GA4 event tag with 'send ecommerce data', which are missing or paused. This makes it clearly a read-only diagnostic, distinct from mutation siblings like gtm_setup_ga4_ecommerce_events or gtm_create_ga4_event_tag.

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?

Usage is only implied — the coverage framing plus the '(3 requests)' cost note suggests a pre-flight check before setup, but the description never says when to run it or why to prefer it over gtm_container_audit. It does explain the effect of include_optional_events, which is a concrete usage instruction for one parameter.

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