Get Active Users

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

With no annotations, the description carries all responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states that this is a query of active-user metrics from GA4. It does not disclose read-only status, authentication needs, rate-limit considerations, metric definitions (e.g., the lookback window for 'active users'), or any constraints on data availability. Nothing contradicts the annotations, but little behavioral context is added beyond the obvious read of 'Get'.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the verb, target resource, date-range scope, and data source with no filler or repetition of schema details. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only metric query, the one-sentence description combined with full parameter documentation and an output schema is nearly complete. However, the absence of any guidance about choosing this over closely related siblings such as get_realtime_users or run_report leaves a real contextual gap for an AI agent selecting among the nine sibling tools.

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%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters including formats and defaults. The description's phrase 'specific date range' reinforces start_date and end_date but does not add meaning for property_id or dimensions beyond what the schema provides; therefore the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'active users metrics' in Google Analytics 4, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_page_views, get_events, or get_realtime_users. It also scopes the operation to a specific date range, so an agent can tell what this tool is for without inspecting the schema.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent should call this when it needs active-user metrics for a historical date range. However, it does not state when not to use it, mention alternatives such as get_realtime_users for current users or run_report for more flexible reporting, or provide any context for choosing among the many sibling get_* metrics tools.

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