Get analytics verification status

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description still adds material context: that it never initiates or retries runs, the full status enum (queued/running/succeeded/failed/expired), what the checks validate (script load and collector endpoint), and that it consumes no credits. That is substantive, non-obvious behavior an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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 dense sentences, zero filler, with the core action and endpoint front-loaded and the behavioral caveats following. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the status vocabulary and what the verification checks cover, giving the agent enough to interpret results. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering parameter exclusivity, nothing material is missing.

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% and the schema itself spells out the projectId/propertyId/projectUuid exclusivity rules and the 409 property_scope_ambiguous case. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema documents, 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 specific verb and resource ('poll the latest snippet verification run for a project's analytics property') and pins the exact endpoint. It also separates itself from the sibling analytics_verify_property by declaring it never starts or retries a run, so an agent can pick the read-only variant without opening the schema.

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 'never starts or retries a run' clause gives clear context that this is the observation-only companion to a verification-start tool, and the mention of polling implies repeated calls. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool or stating when a run must be started first, so it is clear but not fully routed.

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