Google Ads conversion actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a fixed GAQL template on conversion_action via searchStream, name-sorted output, and the REMOVED-filtering rule tied to include_removed.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource, then the returned settings, then the query/filter mechanics. The long field enumeration is dense but informative and each clause carries content; only the multiclause middle sentence strains readability.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers what is queried, how it is sorted, and what is filtered out. No output schema exists, but the field list effectively pre-describes the return shape, leaving only minor gaps around response volume.

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 all four parameters are already documented. The description restates the include_removed behavior and name-sorting that the schema also conveys, adding little new parameter-level meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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 (Google Ads conversion actions and their settings) with an explicit enumeration of the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It never names a sibling such as openai_ads_conversions or ga4_key_events, so differentiation from other conversion-reporting tools relies on the resource name alone rather than explicit contrast.

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 closing sentence gives a concrete use case – 'explain why conversions differ from another platform' – which orients the agent to a real scenario. It offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives, so a 5 is not warranted.

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