ga_run_report

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds a token consumption warning and default limit context, which is useful operational behavior. However, it does not describe response format, pagination behavior, or error conditions, leaving gaps beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise and front-loaded. The token warning is important operational guidance, and the common dimensions/metrics list is compact and immediately useful. Every line contributes value without unnecessary 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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description could do more to explain what the response contains or when to use this over sibling report tools. It does address token usage and provides common field examples, but lacks explicit return-value semantics and usage exclusions. Overall, it is adequate but incomplete for a complex reporting tool.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing common dimension and metric names (e.g., date, city, activeUsers, sessions) that help agents construct valid parameter values beyond the schema's generic examples.

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 runs a custom Google Analytics report with dimensions and metrics. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ga_run_realtime_report, ga_run_pivot_report, or ga_run_funnel_report, so it is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 implies usage for custom reports by listing common dimensions and metrics, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or preferances among the sibling report tools. Token optimization advice is present but not tied to specific alternative selection.

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