Start analytics snippet verification

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds value beyond that: async execution, 202 acceptance, rate-limit behavior (429 retryAt), absence of credit consumption, and the anti-fabrication instruction. Only return-value detail is absent, which is acceptable for a fire-and-poll starter.

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 behavior, then the polling instruction. Slightly redundant — 'This starts an async live-site check' restates the opening sentence and could be cut.

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?

For an async starter tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the async/polling contract, rate limiting, and credit cost — everything an agent needs to invoke and follow up correctly. Minor gaps only in what the accepted run returns.

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 already documents the projectId/propertyId mutual exclusivity and the 409 property_scope_ambiguous case. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 (Start), resource (live verification run for a project's analytics property), and the exact endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling analytics_get_verification, which it explicitly designates as the polling counterpart.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to poll analytics_get_verification for the outcome, giving a clear follow-up path, and warns about 429 with retryAt. It does not state when this tool should NOT be used (e.g., when a verification is already in flight), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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