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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies the scope (active Space), the optional override via space_id, and what is returned. No contradictions with annotations; the description does not need to state read-only because the annotation covers it.

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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the use case, then scope/override instructions. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition of the title/schema.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all needed context: what it lists, example source types, returned fields, how scope works, and how to change scope. It is complete and self-sufficient for an agent to invoke 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%: the only parameter (space_id) is thoroughly described in the schema, including its pattern and default behavior. The description mentions the same override behavior but adds no new parameter details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists conversion sources connected to the active Space, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('revenue/conversion sources'), plus examples of source types and returned fields (type, status, config). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_conversion_source and list_conversion_actions by focusing on reading existing sources.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Use to see which sources are feeding real conversions into Smart Bidding.' It also gives clear context about space scoping and directs to set_active_space for switching or to pass space_id for override. It does not mention explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the guidance is sufficient for correct selection.

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