synter-mcp-server

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it specifies 'all conversion actions' but doesn't mention pagination, sorting, filtering, or response format. With annotations covering the safety profile, this meets baseline expectations.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a simple listing operation with no 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?

For a zero-parameter read operation with readOnlyHint annotation, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, the description doesn't explain what 'list all conversion actions' returns - whether it's a simple array, paginated results, or includes specific fields. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. This exceeds the baseline expectation for parameter 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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('conversion actions configured in Google Ads'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_conversion' or 'get_performance', but the verb 'List' provides inherent distinction from creation/update operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_conversion', 'get_performance', and 'list_campaigns', there's no indication of when this specific listing tool is appropriate versus other listing or retrieval operations.

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