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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the output shape: findings with a severity and a fix for each. It does not mention scoping behavior across accounts or any latency/limit characteristics.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and the checked items, ending with the return format. No padding or redundant restatement of the title.

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-parameter read-only audit with no output schema, the description covers what is inspected and roughly what comes back (severity plus fix), which is enough to call it correctly. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether it audits all campaigns or only enabled ones and how results are ordered.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the folder-vs-account scoping rule, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Checks') and resource ('conversion tracking health') and enumerates the exact checks performed (auto-tagging, enabled primary actions, stale actions, duplicate primaries, clicks without conversions). This clearly separates it from data-reporting siblings like google_ads_conversions or google_ads_conversion_performance, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumeration of checks signals this is a diagnostic tool to run when conversion tracking looks wrong. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives such as ga4_tracking_check or google_ads_conversion_performance for a related question.

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