conversions_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one real behavioral detail, that results are restricted to active key events, but says nothing about aggregation semantics, row limits, or how zero-conversion events are handled.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key information (metrics plus grouping dimension) is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but not padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but with three undocumented parameters at 0% coverage and no usage routing against six closely related siblings, the definition is not complete enough to invoke confidently.

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 0% and the description never mentions property_id, date_start, or date_end. The date defaults ('7daysAgo' to 'today') and required property scope are left entirely for the agent to infer, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific resource (conversions and total users per event name) and scopes it to active key events, which is more informative than a bare restatement of the name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling events_summary, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the text alone.

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 versus run_report, events_summary, or top_pages, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. The only implicit cue is 'active key events', which is a scope statement rather than usage direction.

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