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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the confirm/requestId approval flow and a status-gating note, which is useful, but the generic phrase "Spending/deletion" is boilerplate that does not obviously apply to creating a conversion goal, and it never states permissions, reversibility, or what the response contains.

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 short and front-loads the purpose, but "Spending/deletion" and "Claim live only when status is active" are compressed to the point of ambiguity. The trailing "Fields: soclo://tools/..." pointer is an out-of-band reference that consumes space without telling the agent anything actionable.

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 a tool with 10 parameters, a required nested payload object, and no output schema, the description is thin: it never explains the payload shape or how to verify the resulting goal. It hints at a status check but does not point to soclo_ads_operation_status or describe the preview step needed before confirm:true.

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 60%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces confirm:true and requestId reuse, but says nothing about the required nested payload (name, conversionActionIds) or about expectedCurrency/expectedBudgetType/expectedBudgetAmount and the accountId vs adAccountId distinction.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ("Create a custom conversion goal"), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not distinguish this from nearby siblings such as soclo_ads_create_conversion_action or soclo_ads_update_custom_conversion_goal, leaving ambiguity about which creation tool applies.

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 description gives a workflow rule (preview first, then confirm:true with the same requestId), which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to choose this tool over soclo_ads_create_conversion_action, soclo_ads_update_custom_conversion_goal, or soclo_ads_list_custom_conversion_goals, so sibling selection is left to inference.

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