Get Goal Completions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces the read-only intent by using 'Get' and 'compare conversions', and also notes that goals are created by track_goal, giving helpful lifecycle context. It does not contradict annotations and adds a small amount of behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 paragraph but packs in the core purpose, sibling-tool distinctions, default behavior, filtering semantics, pagination, and authentication requirements. While not broken into sections, it is efficient and every sentence contributes useful context. The length is justified given the tool's complexity and the number of parameters.

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?

The description covers the tool's overall purpose, key usage constraints, and references pagination fields like pagination.total. With the provided schema covering all parameters and context indicating an output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete. It could explicitly state the output shape (e.g., goal name and visitor count fields), but this is partially covered by the tool name and 'how many visitors completed it' phrasing.

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?

All 27 parameters have descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. Many descriptions go beyond the parameter name by providing source endpoints (e.g., 'as returned by get_browsers'), concrete examples (e.g., 'Chrome', 'United States'), and default values. The shared filter-operator explanation is embedded in filter_country, which is slightly awkward but still informative. The descriptions clearly exceed the baseline for covered schemas.

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 the tool 'Get every configured goal (custom events plus the auto-created payment and free_trial goals) with how many visitors completed it in the date range', naming the specific resource and action. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from get_overview, get_breakdown, and get_visitor, giving an agent unambiguous selection guidance.

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 provides strong usage guidance: when to use this tool ('Use this to compare conversions across goals'), when to use alternatives, the default date range, how filter_* parameters work, pagination via limit/offset, and the requirement for websiteId or domain with a workspace token. This leaves little ambiguity for invocation.

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