get_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: custom definitions vary by property, and core metadata does not imply realtime support — a caveat that prevents wrong assumptions downstream.

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?

Two tight sentences with the capability stated first and the realtime caveat second. No filler, and the important scoping warning is not buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the read-only annotations are in place. However, for a discovery tool whose whole value depends on scoping by account/property, leaving the two parameters unexplained is a real gap.

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 both 'account' and 'property_id' arrive undocumented. The phrase 'property-specific custom definitions' hints that property_id changes results, but account is never explained and there is no guidance on whether either parameter is optional in practice.

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 core-report dimensions and metrics', and adds that property-specific custom definitions are included. This cleanly separates it from realtime discovery, though it never names the sibling tool that handles realtime metadata.

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 second sentence implies a when-not condition ('Realtime uses a separate schema') but does not tell the agent which sibling to call instead, nor does it say this should precede run_report or check_compatibility. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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