ga_batch_run_reports

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation by warning of potential large data returns and giving limits to mitigate token usage. This is a specific and useful disclosure about performance characteristics, enhancing the agent's understanding of the tool's 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 description is exceptionally concise: two sentences plus a warning. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical usage constraints. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the main action and immediately follows with important warnings.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the necessary aspects: what it does, the format of the requests, and constraints on batching. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but given the lack of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, this is not a significant gap. The warning about large data partially covers the return expectations.

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 covers the parameter 'requests' with a description referencing ga_run_report, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds further semantics by specifying a practical limit of 2-5 reports and advising small limits for each report, which is valuable guidance beyond the schema. This enriches the parameter meaning and helps the agent construct appropriate requests.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Run multiple reports in a single request.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ga_run_report, which runs a single report, and ga_run_batch_reports, though the name already implies batching. The warning about token optimization further clarifies the purpose as a batching mechanism for efficiency.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Run multiple reports in a single request' and includes a practical constraint: 'Limit to 2-5 reports per batch.' It references the format of ga_run_report, implying it is a batch variant, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The guidance is useful but could be more explicit about replacing multiple ga_run_report calls.

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