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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a non-destructive read operation organically, and the description mentions a concrete output (conversion_customer_id), but it does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or the shape of the returned conversion actions. Basic behavior is clear, but deeper behavioral context is missing.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, with no filler. The second sentence delivers essential, high-value information about the return value. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry more weight than in a fully annotated tool. It covers the main purpose and the key returned ID, but it does not describe the fields of conversion actions, how limit/pagination behaves, or what 'effective Google Ads conversion customer' means in practice. Adequate for a simple list operation, but with clear gaps.

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 only 50%, with limit undocumentedhebdomadaire. The description does not explain the limit parameter and only loosely clarifies the customer_id context with 'effective Google Ads conversion customer.' The mention of conversion_customer_id refers to output rather than an input parameter, so the description adds little semantic value beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List conversion actions' for a defined scope, the effective Google Ads conversion customer. It also communicates the key output, conversion_customer_id, which clarifies why the tool exists. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling conversion_action_* tools or other list tools.

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?

Usage context is implied: the tool is useful before write operations because it 'Returns the conversion_customer_id required for writes.' There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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