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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint: it discloses the data window (last N days up to yesterday, today excluded), the counting basis (all_conversions by conversion date, offline imports attributed to the conversion day rather than the click day), the dynamic field naming conversions_{N}d, and that import/app conversions return None for conversion_id/label.

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 purpose, then the counting caveat, then the ID/label hand-off to other tools — the ordering is sensible and sentences are information-dense. It is somewhat overloaded, mixing GTM tag setup guidance into a listing tool's definition, and the stray line break adds noise.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description supplies the semantics an agent needs to interpret it (which counting basis, what None means, how the dynamic field is named) plus the workspace requirement. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so: 'days' is defined by the window semantics (up to yesterday, today excluded) and echoed in the output field naming, and 'workspace' is explained as an optional customer slug when only one workspace exists. Only the default of 30 is left implicit via the conversions_30d example.

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 ('Alle Conversion-Aktionen') and enumerates returned fields (Status, Typ, Kategorie, Conversions, letztes Conversion-Datum). It also scopes the time window, which distinguishes it from the campaign-level conversion tools in the sibling list.

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 frames the use case ('deckt totes Tracking auf') and warns that the click-dated numbers from the campaign tools are not directly comparable, which effectively routes the agent. It also names the downstream consumers (ads_update_conversion_action, ads_upload_conversions, gtm_create_tag) but stops short of saying when another listing tool should be preferred instead.

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