ga_send_pageview

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds a useful behavioral detail by noting that the 'page_view' event name is applied automatically, but it does not elaborate on send-specific side effects beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the two key pieces of context: standard use case and automatic event name. Every sentence earns its place.

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 straightforward send-event tool, the description plus a fully documented schema and relevant annotations provide enough to call it correctly. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and return-behavior information, but no output schema exists and the operation is simple, so the definition is adequate.

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 already provides descriptions for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail; the only added insight is that the event name is fixed, which is informative but not tied to any specific parameter beyond clarifying why no event_name parameter exists.

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 ('Send') and resource ('page view event to Google Analytics'), and characterizes it as the 'standard event for tracking page/screen views.' This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as ga_send_event or ga_send_purchase.

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 phrase 'Standard event for tracking page/screen views' gives clear guidance on when to use this tool: for page and screen view tracking. It does not, however, explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for custom events use ga_send_event), so it falls 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.