List Analytics events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns distinct events with counts, which is useful but not extensive. It does not disclose potential limitations like pagination or rate limits, but given the annotations, the added value is moderate.

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 succinct and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action and scope, and the second adds return details and purpose. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return format is covered. The description gives a clear purpose but lacks parameter explanation and differentiation from similar tools like audit_event_coverage. For a simple list tool, it is acceptable but leaves gaps in parameter semantics and sibling distinction.

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 the description must explain parameters. It only hints at date range ('given date range') but does not detail property_id, date_range_start, or date_range_end formats, defaults, or purposes. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate all parameters.

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 states the verb 'List', the resource 'GA4 events', and specifies the output: 'every distinct event name with its total event count'. It also conveys the use case ('understand what tracking is configured and active'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like audit_event_coverage or list_gtm_tags.

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 provides a clear context for when to use this tool ('Use this to understand what tracking is configured and active'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions. Still, the usage guidance is direct and helpful.

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