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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, but the description adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot: the fixed 30-day attribution window, the fact that a setting does not emit events itself, the standard-event-only constraint for campaign goals, and that confirm=false yields a dry run. That is exactly the extra context the annotations leave open.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized as a scoped walkthrough of parameters and behavior. Sentences are dense and occasionally run long, but no line is filler given the 0% schema documentation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the behavioral constraints an agent needs to call this correctly (dry run, attribution window, event semantics). Only the unexplained 'name' and 'account' parameters keep it from being fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description carries the full parameter burden, and it covers event_type (all enum values listed, custom fallback, name-format constraints), custom_event_name, source_id (format and empty-default behavior), and confirm. It leaves 'name' and 'account' (default empty) unaddressed, a modest gap.

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?

First sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Creates a ChatGPT Ads conversion event setting') and immediately scopes it with the parenthetical defining what a conversion setting represents. It is clearly distinguishable from chatgpt_ads_conversion_setup and update_chatgpt_ads_campaign, which it references by name.

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 states what to do downstream ('Attach it to campaigns with update_chatgpt_ads_campaign') and where source_id comes from (chatgpt_ads_conversion_setup), plus the constraint that only a STANDARD event can be a campaign goal. It does not give an explicit when-not-to-use or say what to do instead if the pixel source is missing.

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