search_schema

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

The readOnly and idempotent hints are present in annotations, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: results are ranked by relevance, limited to 10 matching fields, and returned in a specific top_results wrapper. This goes beyond the structured annotations and clearly informs the agent what will happen.

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 compact and well-structured: it opens with the core operation, then shows the return format, gives usage guidance, and closes with parameter semantics. Every line contributes value, with no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description explicitly provides the return shape and result structure. It also covers invocation purpose, parameter semantics, and alternatives. For a simple single-parameter, read-only search tool, the description is fully adequate and self-contained.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the keyword parameter's meaning ('One or more keywords') and giving concrete examples ('user', 'campaign revenue'). This makes the single parameter semantically clear even though the schema itself is minimal.

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 a specific action ('Search for a keyword across all dimensions and metrics'), identifies the resource, and explains the ranked result of up to 10 fields with relevance scores. It also differentiates itself from sibling browsing tools by explicitly naming alternatives, making the purpose sharp.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: when you have a concept and need exact API field names before calling get_ga4_data. It also names the alternatives (list_dimension_categories, list_metric_categories) when the user wants to browse without a specific keyword, which is strong decision guidance.

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