ad_manager_google_get_conversion_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about behavior such as response format, pagination, or default location handling (locationId defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID), but it is consistent with the annotations. With annotations present, the minimal description is adequate but not enriched.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action. While it is terse, it is efficient and well-structured for a simple retrieval tool.

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 low-complexity get-by-ID tool with one required parameter, high schema coverage, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not mention the optional locationId parameter's default behavior or any specifics about the returned object, and there is no output schema to clarify the response. Given the low complexity, this is acceptable but leaves some gaps an agent might need to infer.

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 100%, with both locationId and conversionId clearly described in the schema. The description 'Get conversion by ID' adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no additional value is contributed.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('conversion') with the retrieval criterion ('by ID'). The purpose is unambiguous, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ad_manager_google_get_conversions which might also return conversion data. The tool name itself provides clarity, but the description adds little beyond a restatement of the 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer fetching a single conversion vs listing conversions, nor any prerequisites (e.g., integration setup). The name implies usage, but the description offers no explicit context or exclusions.

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