ga_get_account_summaries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the 'compact overview' scope and single-call efficiency, though it does not detail response shape, ordering, or whether results are paginated.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does, and the second reinforces its primary use case and output value.

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 zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool, the description is complete: it names the resource scope, the single-call nature, and the key output fields. The annotations cover safety and idempotence, so no critical information is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter guidance, matching the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a compact overview of all accessible GA accounts and their properties in a single call.' It also clarifies the concrete value delivered: 'account IDs, property IDs, and property names.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ga_list_accounts and ga_list_properties by emphasizing a compact, single-call aggregate view.

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 frames usage as the fastest way to discover account and property IDs/names, which gives clear context on when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended discovery use case is evident.

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