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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the downstream consequence of empty results (bidding failure/silent fallback) and clarifies the expected ID format ('bare 10-digit customer ID'). It doesn't cover pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool the provided context is strong.

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?

The description is slightly longer than absolutely necessary, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence adds value: usage timing, consequences, diagnostic role, parameter clarification, and sibling alternatives. The information density is high with no fluff.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists the returned fields and covers prerequisites, failure modes, and alternative tools. It gives an agent everything needed to decide when to call it and how to interpret a zero-result scenario. No critical selection or invocation context 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 coverage is 100%: both ad_account_id and include_removed have clear descriptions. The tool description only restates the ID format and adds no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters fully.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'List a Google Ads account's conversion actions' and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, type, category, status, etc.). It also contrasts itself with Meta conversion tools by naming adsap_get_pixel_details and adsap_list_custom_conversions, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools 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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('BEFORE creating campaigns with conversion-based bidding') and what failure modes occur if zero enabled actions exist ('bidding modes will fail or a Search campaign will silently fall back'). It also names the Meta alternatives for pixels/conversions, providing clear when-not guidance.

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