ga4_run_report

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses useful defaults (order_by_metric defaults to the first metric, desc defaults to descending) and that the filter is a single exact match, but it does not mention property selection when property_id is null, limit behavior, pagination, or any quota/error behavior.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded and the Args section is organized and free of filler. The listing is somewhat long, but each parameter entry earns its place given the tool has 10 parameters.

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 description covers the core parameters and the main calling patterns, while the output schema carries the return-value documentation so the description does not need to restate it. The main gaps are the unstated semantics of property_id when null and the limit parameter, which prevents a 5.

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%, and the description compensates well by giving concrete examples for dimensions, metrics, date formats, filtering, and sorting. It omits semantic detail for limit and property_id, though their names and defaults are reasonably self-explanatory.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Run a GA4 report') and clearly scopes the tool to arbitrary dimension/metric combinations over a date range. It does not explicitly differentiate from ga4_run_realtime_report, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'any dimension x metric combination over a date range' wording implies a general-purpose reporting tool, and the parameter examples clarify acceptable input formats. No explicit guidance is given about when to choose this over ga4_run_realtime_report or another sibling, and there are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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