get_conversion_actions

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only enumerates output fields and does not state whether the operation is read-only, what customer_id does, whether the result is a list, or any pagination/rate-limit behavior. This is a data summary rather than a behavioral contract.

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 concise phrase that front-loads the resource and compactly lists the key fields without fluff. It is appropriately short, though its fragmentary noun-phrase structure prevents it from being a complete, structured sentence.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description still leaves several gaps: the return shape, whether multiple items are returned, and the semantics of the optional customer_id parameter. The listed attributes give partial context but not enough to invoke the tool correctly with confidence.

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 schema has one parameter, customer_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description completely ignores it. The description adds no meaning about what customer ID should be passed or how it affects the results, thus failing to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 names a specific resource ('conversion actions') and lists the exact attributes returned (category, type, status, counting type, primary-for-goal flags), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists,' leaning on the tool name for the implied action, but the agent can still infer the purpose precisely.

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 about when to use this tool versus any of the 19 sibling tools, nor any mention of conditions or prerequisites. The description gives no routing information, so an agent must infer usage solely from the resource name.

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