get_custom_conversions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains that this is a list operation, documents the default fields returned, defines pagination cursor semantics, and states the return type as a dictionary. Minor gaps remain around authentication, rate limits, and whether 'all' implies full pagination, but the read-only nature is clear.

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 well-structured with a concise purpose line, grouped Args, and a Returns section. The parameter details are dense but relevant, with no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 listing tool with one required parameter and an output schema available, the description covers the essential invocation details: required ID format, optional fields, pagination controls, and return type. It could additionally explain how to iterate pages to retrieve 'all' conversions, but the provided cursors and return-type note make it sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate—and it does. Every parameter is explained: act_id includes a concrete example, fields lists valid options and its default, limit defines its purpose, and after/before are clearly identified as pagination cursors.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all custom conversions defined for an ad account.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like get_custom_audiences and get_saved_audiences by naming the exact object type, scope, and action.

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 intended use is implied by the resource name and the phrase 'defined for an ad account,' but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions, conditions, or sibling comparisons are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and purpose.

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