ga4_check_access

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it reports which tools work, which are blocked, and the exact remediation steps, and it names the analytics.edit scope dependency. It does not say whether the check performs live network calls, how long it takes, or whether it can be safely repeated, which keeps it below 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is checked, then what is returned, then when to call it. No filler, and the parenthetical API and tool lists are compact and informative rather than padding.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return values, and it does at a summary level ('which tools work, which are blocked, and the exact steps to unblock each'). It does not describe the response shape or what a partially-blocked result looks like, which leaves a small gap for a diagnostic tool whose output drives follow-up decisions.

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 coverage is 100% and the single property parameter already documents the 'defaults to the default property' behavior. The description only echoes 'for a saved property', adding no new meaning such as accepted formats or what happens when the name is unknown, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and enumerates exactly what is inspected: Data API, Admin API, Firebase Management API reachability plus analytics.edit write scope for a saved property. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-sibling ga4_test_connection or ga4_check_compatibility, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 gives concrete triggering conditions: call before Admin tools (custom dimensions, streams, key events) and when another tool fails for access. That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative diagnostic sibling (ga4_test_connection) or stating when this check is unnecessary, so it is not a full 5.

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