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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioural context beyond that: the 30-day window, the reconciliation of Google's counted purchases against Shopify orders traced to Google, and that every finding comes with the fix in Google Ads.

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 intent is stated up front, but the payload is delivered as one long run-on list of checks stitched together with commas and em-dashes, which is dense to parse. It is not padded with filler, yet the enumeration could be tightened into a shorter, more scannable form without losing meaning.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the burden of what the caller gets back, and it does so by enumerating each check performed and noting that each finding includes the fix. It stops short of describing the response shape or finding severity, but is otherwise complete for a zero-argument diagnostic.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is a 4. The description correctly frames the call as a parameterless audit snapshot rather than implying filters or arguments.

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 — checking the Google Ads conversion setup against an audit's criteria — and then enumerates the exact checks (which actions count and get bid on, double-counted purchases, non-purchase actions steering bidding, one-per-click counting, static values, clutter). No sibling tool covers conversion health, and the enumerated scope makes the tool unmistakable.

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 final sentence gives an explicit trigger list: any question about Google conversion tracking, conversion actions, primary/secondary conversions, why Google reports so many conversions, or whether Google is optimising for the right thing. It is clear when to use it, but names no alternative or when-not-to-use condition against siblings like get_google_product_split or get_money_flow.

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