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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: BETA status, the returned IDs and their purpose, and the marketing-consent/GTM deployment requirement for the snippet. It stops short of auth or rate-limit details, so a 4.

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 core action is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence (return IDs, prerequisite check, snippet/consent note, param constraints) earns its place. It is dense but not padded, though the mixed inline parameter notes make it slightly less scannable.

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 two-param mutation with an existing output schema, the description covers what it creates, the prerequisite, the returned IDs and their usage, deployment/consent caveats, and both parameter constraints. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: name is constrained to 3–1000 characters with an example (the domain), and workspace is described as the client-workspace slug that is optional when only one workspace exists. Both of the two parameters gain meaning the bare schema lacks.

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+resource: 'Neues Web-Pixel (Conversion-Quelle) im OpenAI-Ads-Konto anlegen.' It also names its siblings and distinguishes itself by pointing to openai_ads_conversion_setup for the prerequisite check and to openai_ads_create_conversion_setting/openai_ads_upload_conversions for downstream use.

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?

'Erst openai_ads_conversion_setup prüfen — meist gibt es schon ein Pixel je Website' gives an explicit when-not/alternative condition. The description also maps source_id and pixel_id to the exact follow-up tools, so the agent knows both when to use this and what comes next.

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