run_realtime_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by indicating the tool shows current active users and events. However, it does not detail other behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness.

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 concise with three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the function, suggesting a use case, and providing examples. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary 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?

With an output schema present, return values are already documented. The description complements this by explaining the tool's real-time nature and typical use. It is nearly complete, though a note on property ID context would be helpful.

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 parameter coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists common dimensions and metrics with examples, aiding parameter selection. However, it does not explain the 'property_id' parameter or the exact syntax for dimensions/metrics arrays.

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 tool runs a GA4 realtime report showing current active users and events. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_ga4_report by specifying 'realtime', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly recommends using the tool for checking tracking after code changes, providing a clear use case. While it does not list alternatives or when not to use, the realtime context implicitly differentiates it from historical reports.

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