validate_tracking

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate no side effects. The description adds detail on return values (matched events, missing events, unexpected events, auto-collected events) and the comparison logic, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then step-by-step instructions, then lists return categories. No redundant sentences. Front-loading the main action.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage and no output schema detail in the context, the description partially compensates by listing return categories. However, it omits important context like prerequisites (GA4 access), what property_id represents, and error handling. The presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the need to explain return values, but parameter documentation is still lacking.

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 parameter meaning. It only implicitly explains expected_events as the event names from codebase. The date range and property_id parameters are not described, leaving the agent without guidance on their purpose or defaults.

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's purpose: 'Compare tracking events found in the codebase against actual GA4 data.' It specifies the workflow (search codebase for gtag/dataLayer calls, then pass event names to this tool) and distinguishes it from siblings like get_tracking_events and run_ga4_report.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'First, search the user's codebase... Then pass those names here to check which ones actually fire in GA4.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (after codebase extraction) and implicitly suggests alternatives for raw data retrieval.

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