ga_run_pivot_report

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

The annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema by warning that pivot reports can be VERY large and that token usage should be managed by limiting dimensions and date ranges. This is important operational guidance an agent would not get from annotations alone.

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 only two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a high-value warning. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no description of return values or pivot structure, making this incomplete for confident invocation. It does not clarify the relationship between the 'dimensions' and 'pivots' parameters, nor does it explain when to use this tool versus ga_run_report. The token-optimization warning is valuable, but it does not fill the structural gaps.

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 only 40%, and the description does not compensate by clarifying the missing parameters. It gives high-level advice to limit dimensions and date ranges, but does not explain how pivots map to row/column dimensions, what metrics should contain, or how fieldNames in pivots work. The description adds strategic guidance but not enough parameter-level meaning.

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 verb and resource: 'Run a pivot table report with row and column dimensions.' This distinguishes it from ga_run_report and ga_run_realtime_report at a basic level, though it does not explicitly name those siblings or explain the exact difference beyond the pivot-table concept.

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 gives clear context: pivot reports are for analysis, not raw data extraction, and should use limited dimensions and small date ranges. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like ga_run_report for raw extraction, but the guidance is actionable enough for an agent to select the right use case.

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