run_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior: running a report with given parameters, default limit, sorting, and date formats. It does not cover error handling, rate limits, or permission requirements, but it is otherwise transparent about functionality.

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 well-structured with separate sections for each parameter in a bullet-like format. It is concise yet informative, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary repetition.

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 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics thoroughly. It also references a sibling tool for finding property ID. However, it lacks information about potential errors, permissions, or output structure (though output schema exists). For a data-fetching tool, this is close to complete but missing some operational context.

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%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter with examples and defaults. It adds significant value beyond the schema by providing GA4 dimension/metric API names, date formats, and sorting behavior. This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the tool runs a GA4 report with arbitrary dimensions and metrics. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_properties and run_realtime_report by emphasizing flexibility in dimensions/metrics and by referencing list_properties to find the property ID.

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 detailed guidance on each parameter with examples and defaults, including how to find property_id via list_properties. However, it does not explicitly compare with run_realtime_report or state when to use one over the other. The context signals mention sibling tools, but the description itself lacks that contrast.

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