Send conversion events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/side-effect profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the adsconversions scope requirement and the Events Manager visibility of test events. It stays silent on rate limits, batching behavior, and error semantics.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the scope requirement and the test-mode note. Zero filler; every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool whose nested schema carries the event payload detail, the description covers purpose, auth scope, and test mode. No output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed. The main gap is the absence of batch-size or rate expectations, though maxItems is in the schema.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, but the nested event schema is richly self-documented. The description compensates only partially by explaining test_id's effect, while pixel_id and the data envelope remain unexplained in prose. Marginal added value over the structured fields.

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 and resource: 'Send server-side conversion events through the Conversions API.' An agent immediately knows this dispatches conversion events. It does not, however, contrast itself against any sibling or clarify scope relative to the many other ads tools.

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 implies usage ('Use test_id to send test events visible in Events Manager'), giving a concrete hint for the test path, but it never states when to use live mode vs. test mode, prerequisites beyond the scope, or alternatives. Usage is implied rather than explicitly framed.

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