List analytics goals

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world traits, but the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the attribution model (within-visit, one completion per goal per visit, prospective counting from creation), the caveat that goal names are user-authored data, and the notable 'does not use credits' cost disclosure. It stops short of describing pagination or result-size behavior.

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-loads the verb, resource, and endpoint, then adds the return-shape and caveats. Dense but largely waste-free; the parenthetical attribution clause is long but carries real 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 helpfully sketches what is returned (completions and per-source split) and flags the attribution semantics. For a 7-param read tool whose defaults and exclusivity rules live in a fully-covered schema, this is close to complete; only pagination/volume behavior is unaddressed.

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 all 7 params including the projectId/propertyId exclusivity and range defaults. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail, so 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 ('List') and resource ('destination-URL goals'), plus the endpoint and the shape of the returned data (per-goal completions, per-source split). This is enough to distinguish it from the goal-mutating siblings like analytics_create_goal and analytics_archive_goal.

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 advises using the stable numeric id rather than the customer-authored name when acting on a goal, which is useful context, but it never says when to prefer this tool over siblings or what preconditions apply. Usage is only implied by the read/list nature of the tool.

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