zuckerbot_get_custom_conversion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of safety and side-effect disclosure. It adds meaningful context: this is a pure read of an already-bound ad engine, never binds or consumes a slot, and stats requests are capped at 90 days by default 30. This tells the agent things it would not otherwise know about the tool's behavior and limits.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the first defines scope and output fields, the second defines optional stats parameters, the third clarifies side-effect behavior. There is no redundant language and the key limitation (read-only, no slot consumption) is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what gets returned — it virtually lists the fields. It also covers interesting behavior, optional stats, defaults, and the clean-read side effect. Given 6 parameters (5 optional, 1 required) and a simple no-nested object shape, everything an agent needs to make a correct call is present.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by clarifying that include_stats expects an explicit bounded window, that the default window is last 30 days and is capped at 90, and by giving the fields returned. This meaningfully supplements, though schema already owns most per-parameter descriptions.

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 opens with 'Read one custom conversion in full' — a specific verb plus resource telling the agent exactly what the tool does. It enumerates the returned fields and distinguishes this from listing by saying 'one custom conversion,' so it can be differentiated from zuckerbot_list_custom_conversions and zuckerbot_create_custom_conversion without inspecting schemas.

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?

The description clearly frames the tool as an individual-read operation with optional stats, which is a strong usage signal. It is not explicit about when NOT to use it or naming an alternative for bulk listing, though the conversion_id schema hint points to zuckerbot_list_custom_conversions; making it slightly shy of explicit route-selection guidance. Overall, context is clear but exclusions are implicit.

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