ga4_firebase_apps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it declares the required API enablement, the Firebase Viewer IAM role, and the failure behavior (the error explains how to fix access problems). It leaves out pagination behavior and confirms read-only only implicitly through "List".

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 the capability before prerequisites, and no filler. The only blemish is the mid-sentence language switch ("Firebase Viewer (o Lector) en el proyecto de Firebase"), which reads as an editing artifact in an otherwise English description.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and access prerequisites, which is what an agent needs to call it or recover from failure. Only the absence of result-volume/pagination hints keeps it from being fully 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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains firebase_project as the Firebase/Cloud project id. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond that, but the baseline for a fully documented one-parameter tool is satisfied.

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?

"List the Android, iOS and web apps of a Firebase project, with their app ids, package names and bundle ids" gives a specific verb, resource scope, and even the returned fields. It stops short of distinguishing itself from adjacent siblings such as ga4_firebase_links or ga4_property_from_firebase, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the prerequisites (Firebase Management API enabled, Firebase Viewer role) tell the agent when the call will succeed, and it points to ga4_check_access as a one-shot diagnostic alternative. There is no explicit "use this when you need X instead of Y" routing against ga4_firebase_links or ga4_property_from_firebase.

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