analytics_report_segments__get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the URL is short-lived, the rows are gzipped TSV at that URL, and the response carries the link, not the data. This sets clear expectations about expiration and data format without contradicting annotations.

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-loaded with the core action 'Read one segment' and immediately clarifies the key caveat about the URL carrying the link, not the data. No unnecessary words; every sentence 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 get tool, the description covers the essential return value (short-lived signed URL, checksum, byte size), explains the data format (gzipped TSV at the URL), and clarifies the response does not contain the data itself. The absence of an output schema is compensated by this description, and the tool's low complexity means no further context is needed.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema: id says 'ID from the matching list call' and fields_analyticsReportSegments lists the enum with a warning about row size. The description reinforces that the attributes are checksum, sizeInBytes, and URL, but adds no new syntax or format details. With schema description coverage at 100%, the description does not need to compensate, so a baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and names the resource 'one segment', clearly distinguishing it from list operations. It further clarifies that the response contains a short-lived signed URL, checksum, and byte size, not the actual data. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable even among many sibling tools.

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 clearly implies usage for fetching a single segment by ID, and the schema notes the ID comes from a matching list call. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., analytics_report_instances__segments__list) or provide when-not-to-use advice. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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