ga4 get event parameters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by noting the result is best-effort, combines metadata with event reports, and acknowledges Data API limitations for raw parameters. This gives the agent important expectations about completeness and reliability.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core function ('best-effort event parameter inventory'), then adds the key caveat about Data API limitations. Every phrase 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?

With a 100%-covered input schema, an output schema, and annotations that fully describe safety, the description adds the missing caveat about effort and limitations. It is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke this tool. It could name sibling tools for clearer routing, but the current context is adequate given the rich structured data.

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 fully documents all six parameters, their types, defaults, and constraints. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden and the description need not repeat it.

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 clearly communicates that the tool produces an inventory of event parameters from GA4 metadata and event reports, and that it documents limitations of the Data API for raw parameters. It is distinct from sibling tools that handle audits, reporting, or custom definitions, though it relies on the phrase 'best-effort inventory' rather than an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists.' Overall the resource and scope are specific enough to be useful.

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 implies usage: when an agent needs a best-effort inventory of event parameters, this is the tool. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, such as when needing custom definitions (ga4_get_custom_definitions) or a standard report (ga4_run_report). The usage context is clear but not fully articulated.

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