ad_manager_google_get_conversion_goals

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully covers the safety and side-effect profile. The description adds absolutely no additional behavioral context—no mention of pagination, filtering, scope, return values, or any caveats. Since the description provides zero value beyond what annotations already convey, a score of 2 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise—a single three-word sentence with no waste or superfluous detail. It is front-loaded and gets straight to the point. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

Given the abundance of sibling tools with very similar names (get_conversions, get_conversion_by_id, get_audiences, etc.), the description lacks the context needed to disambiguate. It does not explain what 'conversion goals' means versus 'conversions', nor does it mention any specific behavior or limitations. The agent would be uncertain about which tool to call, making the description incomplete for correct selection.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage and fully documents 'locationId' (including its default behavior of falling back to GHL_LOCATION_ID). The description adds no parameter information, so it does not enhance what the schema already provides. The baseline for full schema coverage is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 clearly states a verb ('Get') and a resource ('conversion goals'), making the basic purpose evident. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like ad_manager_google_get_conversions (which likely retrieves a list of conversions) or ad_manager_google_get_conversion_by_id (which retrieves a single conversion), so an agent cannot easily tell whether 'conversion goals' is a distinct concept or the same as 'conversions'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar Google ad manager read tools. The description does not specify prerequisites, scoping, or comparisons to alternatives, leaving the agent to guess which tool is appropriate for a given intent.

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