Get analytics overview

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral semantics: `totals: null` means no reporting basis rather than zero, `goals.configured: false` differs from a configured goal with zero completions, and collector state/freshness must be checked. It also discloses the no-credit cost, none of which is derivable from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and URL, then a compact honest-null caveat and a cost note. Dense but each clause carries information; the run-on list of returned artifacts ('instrumentation card, six-state collector + freshness') is slightly jargon-heavy but not wasteful.

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, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so at a good level of detail, including the important null-state semantics. It stops short of describing the response envelope or pagination, but for an aggregate overview endpoint that gap is minor.

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 schema already documents date range, tz, and the projectId/propertyId/projectUuid targeting rules in detail. The description adds nothing about parameters (e.g. it never reinforces the 'propertyId alone, do not combine' constraint), so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the GA Overview via GET /api/v1/analytics/overview') and enumerates the payload (visits/AI visits/goal completions chain, top engines and landing pages, goals summary, collector state). This is far more specific than a tautology, though it never names a sibling (e.g. analytics_get_traffic) to disambiguate from the other analytics_get_* tools.

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 only implied: an agent can infer 'overview' is the broad summary versus analytics_get_traffic's narrower data, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The 'does not use credits' note is a cost hint rather than selection guidance.

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