Validate tracking

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

The description is transparent about the tool's read-only nature, consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It details the process (searching for gtag calls, passing event names) and explicitly lists the output components (matched, missing, unexpected, auto-collected events), so the agent knows exactly what to expect without hidden side effects.

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: a one-sentence summary, a two-step workflow, and a bullet-like list of return types. No redundant information or filler; every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a read-only validation tool, the description covers the purpose, workflow, and output types. However, it lacks explanations for the date range parameters and the property_id, which are part of the input schema. While the output schema exists, the description does not fully contextualize all inputs, leaving some ambiguity for the agent on how to fill them correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, and the description only mentions 'expected_events' indirectly ('pass those names here'). The other three parameters (property_id, date_range_start, date_range_end) are not explained, leaving the agent to infer their meaning. Since the description does not compensate for the lack of schema details, this score is low.

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: comparing tracking events from the codebase against actual GA4 data. It specifies the exact workflow (search codebase for gtag/dataLayer calls, extract event names, then validate) and the type of output (matched, missing, unexpected, auto-collected events), making the function's intent 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 provides explicit usage guidance: first extract event names from the codebase, then pass them to this tool. It also implies the prerequisite (having GA4 data access) and sets expectations by listing the return categories. This is a clear 'when and how to use' instruction that goes beyond a simple verb.

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