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

Beyond the read-only annotations, it discloses a subtle data-model behavior: `included_in_conversions` is the real Primary/Secondary flag in goal-based accounts, NOT the legacy `primary_for_goal`. It also proactively explains an absent field (the UI 'Tracking status' diagnostic is computed by Google and not exposed via the API), which prevents the agent from hunting for 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?

Front-loaded with verb+resource before the column enumeration and the sibling reference. Dense and run-on, and the column list partly duplicates the output schema, but each clause carries real semantic value.

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 needn't be re-explained; the description nonetheless clarifies the trickiest field's semantics and flags the one field that is deliberately missing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It implies the meaning of `days` ('recorded conversions + value over the last `days`') but never explains the required `customer_id` parameter. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Lists Google Ads CONVERSION ACTIONS') and enumerates the exact columns returned, defining scope precisely. It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_conversion_goals by clarifying the complementary roles (actions vs categories).

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?

Explicitly says what to use it for ('see which action sits in which category and which one is biddable') and names the join partner (list_conversion_goals) plus the routing logic. An agent knows exactly when to pick it and what to combine it with.

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