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

Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently describes a read operation. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation: the result scope (active Space), the override behavior via space_id, and the return categories. No contradictions found, and it helps an agent know what to expect from the call.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core functionality and return content, the second gives the primary use case, and the third clarifies scoping and override behavior. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 description covers the operation, return categories, filtering options, and active Space behavior, which is sufficient for a read-only tool with three optional parameters and no output schema. It doesn't specify exact response shape or limits for 'most recent uploads,' but it gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents all three parameters well. The description reinforces the campaign_id filter and space_id override semantics, but does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Return offline-conversion upload status for the active Space') and enumerates the exact data returned: total count, last upload time, total value, and most recent uploads. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_conversion_report or get_conversion_health, which serve different purposes.

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?

It explains when to use the tool: 'The cheapest way to verify that the offline conversions you report are actually landing.' It also gives practical scoping guidance, referencing set_active_space and space_id override. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_conversion_report, but the purpose and cost framing provide sufficient guidance.

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