Get analytics property

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses meaningful traits: the site key is never returned (security), a specific 409 ambiguity error, and that the call does not consume credits (billing). It stops short of describing pagination/auth or latency behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 action and endpoint, then the returned fields, then the error and billing note. No filler sentences; every clause carries distinct information.

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 compensates by enumerating the return fields and the full six-state collector enum, and it covers the principal failure mode. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result correctly.

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 projectId/propertyId/projectUuid semantics and the mutual-exclusion rule are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the ambiguity consequence but adds no new syntax or format meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Get the analytics property for a project') and even the underlying endpoint, then enumerates exactly what is returned (hostname, property state, collector state, latest verification run). This lets an agent separate it from analytics_get_overview or analytics_get_verification without opening schemas.

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 the key operational condition — the project-scoped lookup resolving only when the project has exactly one property, otherwise 409 property_scope_ambiguous — plus the note that no credits are consumed. It does not name alternative tools for the multi-property case, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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