ga_validate_event

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context by explaining it uses GA4's debug endpoint, does not record the event, and returns validation messages and errors. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand side effects and return behavior, though it doesn't cover all details like rate limits or authentication.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value. There is no redundant information or filler, making it extremely concise and well-structured.

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 tool with nested objects and four parameters, the description gives a high-level purpose and return behavior, but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., having a GA4 property configured), parameter usage, and edge cases. It is adequate for a simple validation tool but leaves gaps for an agent unfamiliar with GA4 specifics.

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 low (25%), and the description does not compensate by explaining parameters like user_id, client_id, or the structure of events beyond what the schema provides. The description only mentions 'an event' generically, leaving several parameters undocumented in both the schema and description, making it hard to invoke correctly.

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 validates an event before sending it to Google Analytics, using a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('event'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling send tools by explicitly noting it does not record the event, making its purpose unambiguous.

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: use this before sending an event, to check for errors. It implies the tool is for pre-send validation, which differentiates it from send tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The guidance is useful but not exhaustive.

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