get_conversion_performance

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful output context (conversion attribution to campaigns, cost per conversion, conversion value), but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or latency on large date ranges.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then the return contents. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches what comes back (per-conversion-type metrics with campaign attribution and cost/value). Given 100% schema coverage and full annotations, the only real gap is nothing about result size or granularity implications.

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 six parameters (dates, accountId, campaignIds, includePostView, timeGranularity) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter behavior or formats, so the baseline of 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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('conversion metrics broken down by conversion type/action') and lists the payload dimensions (campaign attribution, cost per conversion, conversion value). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_campaign_performance or list_conversions, which an agent must infer from the 'by conversion type' framing.

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 choose this over get_campaign_performance, get_creative_performance, or list_conversions, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the breakdown-by-conversion-type phrasing.

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