run_realtime_report

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: the 0–29 vs 30–59 tiering gated on Analytics 360, the absence of offset in realtime, and the meaning of truncated=true. It stops short of saying what the response shape or row limits look like, but that is largely covered by the output schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and default, each carrying distinct information (defaults, tier limits, allowed dimension/metric types, truncation behavior). The truncated sentence is compressed to the point of being slightly cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 values need not be described, and the realtime-specific constraints are well covered. However, for a 9-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, leaving property_id, limit, and the filter/order_by objects entirely unexplained is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains minutes_ago well (inclusive, tiered ranges) and implies the metrics default, but says nothing about property_id, account, limit, dimensions, order_bys, metric_filter, or dimension_filter — the majority of the surface area.

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 ("Read realtime data") and pins the default output (activeUsers over the last 30 minutes), which clearly separates it from the batch/historical run_report sibling. It never names run_report explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Provides real usage constraints: minutes_ago is inclusive, 30–59 requires Analytics 360, no offset exists, and truncated=true means narrow the dimensions/filters or raise the limit. What it lacks is a direct statement of when to choose this over run_report or get_summary, so the agent must infer the realtime-vs-historical split.

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