run_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain that metrics/dimensions use GA4 API names and that dates accept relative forms, which adds some context. However, it does not discuss output format, pagination, error handling, rate limits, or other behavioral traits, making it insufficient for transparent operation.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and then giving concise parameter examples. Every sentence provides value without repetition or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, making the description the primary source of context. It covers the most critical parameter semantics (metrics/dimensions, dates) but leaves gaps around property_id, limit, and expected response structure. It is adequate for basic use but not complete for robust invocation.

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 compensate. It adds meaning for metrics (e.g., 'activeUsers', 'conversions') and dimensions (e.g., 'date', 'sessionDefaultChannelGroup'), plus date range formats for start_date/end_date. It does not explain property_id (expected format) or limit (behavior), so coverage is partial across the 6 parameters.

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 action ('Run a GA4 report') and the resource (GA4), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling 'run_realtime_report', but the naming and context imply standard reporting, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_realtime_report. It gives parameter formatting details but does not state the primary use case, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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