ga4_account_summaries

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it states the required API enablement (analyticsadmin.googleapis.com on the quota project), the minimum role, and the failure behavior ('the error explains how to fix it'). That tells an agent what auth and setup preconditions to expect. It does not cover pagination, volume limits, or latency for large account sets, which keeps it below a 5.

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 purpose and use case are front-loaded, which is good, but the prerequisite sentence contains an untranslated Spanish clause ('cualquier rol en al menos una cuenta de GA4') that breaks consistency and may confuse an agent parsing requirements. The final sentence packs two distinct ideas (error guidance and the ga4_check_access alternative) together rather than separating them.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description states what comes back: property ids and names. Combined with stated API prerequisites, role requirements, error behavior, and an alternative tool, an agent has enough to call this correctly and to recover from an access failure. Missing details are minor for a simple enumeration 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single optional 'property' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about that parameter and in fact creates mild tension: it frames the call as enumerating all accessible properties, while the schema defaults to a saved property. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the work.

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: 'List every Google Analytics account and property these credentials can access, with property ids and names.' It makes the scope (accounts plus properties reachable by the current credentials) concrete, which separates it from report-oriented siblings. It stops short of naming the closest alternative (ga4_list_properties) in the description itself, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It provides an explicit use case ('Useful to find the property id to configure') and points to an alternative, ga4_check_access, noting that it 'checks everything at once.' That gives an agent a real routing decision. What is missing is an explicit negative case — e.g. when not to call this versus ga4_list_properties or ga4_property_details.

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