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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only.' merely restates that. The audit-scope list adds some substance about what the tool inspects, but there is no disclosure of cost, latency, or how findings are summarized versus detailed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence delivers the core scope, and 'Read-only.' is a useful one-word safety restatement. The trailing 'Tools revision: 5c9bea8f.' is metadata noise that does not help an agent select or call the tool.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety profile, so those needn't be explained. The real gap is parameter behavior at 0% schema coverage: an agent cannot tell what 'detail: full' returns versus 'summary', or how max_findings interacts with render.

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% for all five parameters, so the description bears the burden of explaining days, detail, render, and max_findings. It mentions none of them, leaving the agent with bare, undescribed fields whose defaults and effects (especially detail vs. max_findings) must be guessed.

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 ('Check whether...') and resource ('conversion tracking'), then enumerates the exact dimensions audited: primary actions, enhanced conversions, attribution model, values, duplicate counting, GA4 link, consent mode, tag firing. That enumeration distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like explain_conversion_gap, bidding_audit, and full_audit.

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 framing 'the measurement every other number in the account rests on' implies this is the prerequisite audit before trusting other metrics, which is useful usage context. However, it never says when to prefer this over full_audit or explain_conversion_gap, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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