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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the word 'proxy', hinting the output is an estimate, but says nothing about model assumptions or what the computed value represents.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core computation. The second sentence is pure link promotion and could be dropped, but the overall length is appropriately small.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value; it implies a per-conversion dollar figure but never clarifies whether it also returns total monthly value. It is adequate for invocation but leaves the output shape ambiguous.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description names only two of the three inputs (won customer value, micro-to-customer rate) and never mentions monthlyMicroConversions, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('back into a proxy dollar value') and resource ('early-funnel micro-conversion') and even names two of the driving inputs. It is clearly distinguishable from generic calculators, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from near-neighbors like video_conversion_modeler.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The only navigation aid is an external URL to a 'full version', which does not tell the agent which sibling tool to pick instead.

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