ga4_setup_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that findings are severity-graded with reasons and benign exceptions, and explicitly states it is read-only. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and read-only nature, then concisely enumerates checks. It is somewhat verbose but every sentence provides useful detail. No 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 tool complexity (multiple checks, severity output) and simple schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and the nature of its output. It does not detail the exact return format but that is partially covered by mentioning severity-graded findings, which is sufficient for an audit tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with the parameter description already stating format and default behavior. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, so no extra benefit.

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 explicitly states the tool audits a GA4 property's configuration for SEO-measurement readiness. It lists specific checks (web data stream, key events, data retention, custom dimensions, enhanced measurement, Google Signals) and clearly answers a specific question ('can this property actually measure my organic outcomes?'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ga4_run_report or gsc_coverage_audit, which serve different purposes.

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 assessing GA4 property readiness for organic measurement, and clarifies it checks hygiene, not business events. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context of answering a specific question gives reasonable guidance.

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