ga_send_view_item

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false, signaling a state-changing call. The description adds useful context by identifying the event type and funnel position, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as required identifiers, side effects beyond sending, or rate-limiting considerations. 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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded ('Send a view item event') and no filler. The funnel context earns its place by supporting purpose and usage differentiation.

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?

Adequate for a straightforward tracking event given that the schema documents most parameters and annotations convey the mutation profile. However, it omits guidance on the use of client_id vs user_id and does not clarify how to construct the items array beyond what the schema provides. The missing output schema is partially mitigated by the nature of a send event, but the coverage gaps keep it from being complete.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning; it only names the event. Schema description coverage is 67%, leaving user_id and client_id undocumented in both the schema and the description. Since the description does not compensate for these gaps or enrich the semantics of the existing parameters, it provides minimal value beyond the input schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Send a view item event to Google Analytics.' Further clarifies it as an ecommerce event for tracking product/item detail views and places it in the standard funnel (view_item → add_to_cart → begin_checkout → purchase), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling send_add_to_cart, send_begin_checkout, and send_purchase tools.

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?

Provides clear context: this is for product/item detail views and is the first step in the standard ecommerce funnel. It implies when to use it relative to the other send_* event tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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