GA4 key event audit

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the two Data API runReport calls (cost/latency signal), the exact output keys including a findings list with severities, and a data_complete flag implying freshness caveats. It stops short of auth or quota details.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then call mechanics, then return shape, then heuristics — a sensible order. The enumerated output keys are dense but justified because no output schema exists; the phrasing is compact with little filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming every top-level key plus the findings structure. Combined with the annotations and a fully documented schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only rate-limit/auth expectations are absent.

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%, with date formats, client_id resolution and property_id fallback all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters — no guidance on date range choice for the audit — so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opening sentence names a specific resource and diagnostic angle: which GA4 events are key events and whether they inflate conversions, with concrete red-flag criteria (more key events than sessions, page_view marked as key, contact clicks marked as key). It is clearly a diagnostic audit rather than a plain listing, which implicitly separates it from ga4_key_events, but it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

"Run it first on a new property, before reading any conversion rate or ROAS" gives an explicit ordering rule, and the Admin > Events > Key events pointer tells the agent what to do with findings. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are given, which keeps it below a 5.

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