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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses valuable behavior: idempotency on orderId, platform routing based on gclid vs msclkid, and scoping to the active Space with a space_id override. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema alone.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and payload shape before idempotency and scoping. Every sentence adds new information, with no filler or 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 mutation tool with a nested body, the description covers payload structure, optional fields, routing behavior, idempotency, and Space scoping. It does not describe the response shape, but with no output schema and a clear invocation contract, nothing essential is missing for calling the tool 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema's body description is generic. The description adds the full payload shape, optional and required fields, ISO 8601 format, identifier semantics, and the space_id override behavior. This is a substantial semantic addition beyond the structured 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?

The description is specific and action-oriented: 'Upload one or more offline conversions' and explains the attribution-loop purpose clearly. It does not explicitly contrast the tool with sibling upload_conversion_adjustment or create_conversion_action, so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives a concrete when-to-use example (a booked call from the CRM) and clarifies the click-id attribution context. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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