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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that reporting triggers billing and the campaign's postback if registered, and it clarifies the meaning of each conversion type. However, it does not mention error handling, authentication requirements, or return values, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, delivering the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently listing conversion types in a structured way. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant elaboration.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, side effects, and parameter usage for critical fields. It could be more complete by mentioning response format or error conditions, but the core context is well-addressed given the tool's moderate complexity.

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?

The description adds significant semantic meaning for conversionType by defining each enum value and links couponCode to the deliver_ad payload. With only 43% schema coverage, it compensates well for key parameters but omits context, occurredAt, and valueCredits, which are still documented in 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?

The description clearly states what the tool does: reports an event that bills a conversion unit. It explicitly enumerates the valid conversion types (recommendation, decision, coupon_redeemed, and legacy cpa/cpl/cpi) and explains their semantics, distinguishing it from sibling tools like report_click and report_impression.

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?

The description provides clear usage context by mapping each conversion type to its specific scenario (e.g., recommendation surfaces an offer, decision in a multi-option step) and instructs to correlate with clickId when available. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the context strongly implies it is for conversion reporting, not click or impression events.

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