ga_run_realtime_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the 30-minute recency window and token optimization, but does not disclose response shape, potential rate limits, or pagination behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The token-optimization note and common dimension/metric lists are concise and earn their place. There is no redundant or vague 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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides enough guidance to invoke the tool: real-time scope, common fields, and limit usage. It does not explain the return value format or detail how metrics/dimensions should be structured, but these gaps are partially mitigated by the schema and examples.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing common dimensions and metrics (city, country, activeUsers, conversions) that are not present in the schema, helping the agent form valid queries. It also reinforces limit's purpose, though the schema already documents the default.

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: 'Get real-time Google Analytics data (last 30 minutes).' This clearly identifies both the action and the exact time scope, and the real-time distinction differentiates it from siblings like ga_run_report. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 states this is for real-time data within the last 30 minutes, giving the agent context on when to select this tool. It also provides practical guidance on using 'limit' for token optimization. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with historical reporting tools like ga_run_report or state when not to use it.

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