Analytics: tempo reale

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context — the 30-minute freshness window — but says nothing about rate limits, quota behavior, or what the realtime response contains.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core definition comes first, followed by use case and helpful dimension hints. Slightly terse rather than wasteful.

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 conveys the key return concept (realtime active users) and dimension guidance, and annotations cover the read-only nature. Minor gaps remain around limit/metrics behavior, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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 only 25% (only property is documented), so the description must compensate. It does partially, by naming useful dimensions (unifiedScreenName, country, deviceCategory) that guide the dimensions parameter, but it says nothing about limit or metrics semantics.

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?

States a specific metric and window: active users in the last 30 minutes, which clearly identifies the GA4 realtime report and implicitly separates it from the historical ga_report sibling. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives a use case (verify the immediate effect of a publication or campaign), which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it never states when to prefer ga_report instead, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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