ga_list_properties

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

The annotations already declare this tool read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds behavioral context beyond those annotations: without an account ID, properties from all accessible accounts are aggregated; with one, results are filtered. It does not mention pagination or auth specifics, but those are unnecessary for this simple listing operation.

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 consists of two short sentences: the first states the purpose directly, and the second explains the optional filtering behavior. Every sentence earns its place, there is no repetition of the schema, and the key usage information is front-loaded.

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 the low complexity, one optional parameter, rich annotations, and complete schema coverage, the description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It states what the tool does and exactly how the optional parameter affects the result, with nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents accountId as an optional filter with an example. The description reinforces the optional filtering behavior but adds little semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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, 'List Google Analytics properties', making the tool's function immediately identifiable. It also explains the optional account ID filter and the aggregation behavior, which clearly distinguishes it from account-level or single-property siblings like ga_list_accounts and ga_get_property.

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 clearly explains when to supply an account ID and what happens when it is omitted, providing a decision rule for the caller. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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