List key events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results carry counting method and creation time, but says nothing about volume, pagination, or auth requirements beyond what annotations supply, so it only marginally exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the legacy-name clarification immediately after. Nothing is wasted, though the trailing 'with counting method and creation time' phrasing is slightly vague about what is actually returned.

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 list tool with a fully documented single parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly, and annotations cover the safety profile. Pagination and return-size behavior are the only unaddressed items, which is minor here.

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?

There is one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the accepted ID formats and the GA4_DEFAULT_PROPERTY fallback. The description adds no parameter detail, which is the correct baseline when the schema fully documents the input.

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 verb and resource ('List a property's key events') and adds the useful synonym 'formerly called conversions' so an agent can map legacy terminology. It never names a sibling or explains how this differs from list_properties or run_report, so it is clear but undifferentiated.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives to consider. It relies entirely on the tool name to imply 'call this when you need the key events for a property,' which is minimal context.

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