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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: newest-first ordering and cursor semantics with next_cursor returning null on the last page. The 'cursor' parameter has no schema description, so this is the only place pagination behavior is documented. It stops short of mentioning rate limits, default result count, or row contents.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource, then the row kinds, then ordering and pagination. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 62-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what rows are returned, sort order, and pagination, which is the core calling contract. It omits what columns a conversion row actually contains and how the large filter set combines (AND vs. multi-value tag OR), leaving genuine gaps for a tool this complex.

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 81%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning (period default, custom date range, tag id lists, permission note on 'user'). The description adds no filtering semantics beyond repeating the event types that the enum already lists, so baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete resource (raw conversion rows) and enumerates the row kinds it returns (leads, sales, rejects, upsells), which is more specific than the name alone. It does not, however, explicitly separate itself from near siblings like list_clicks, list_transactions, or get_statistics, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to prefer this raw-row listing over get_statistics (aggregates), list_transactions, or import_conversions. The word 'Raw' hints at unaggregated output but no alternative is named and no prerequisite is stated.

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