bing get conversion goals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful caveat beyond structured data: that the presence of a goal configuration does not mean conversions are actually being tracked. It adds nothing on pagination or limits, keeping it below 5.

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 short sentences, the primary action front-loaded and the interpretive caveat immediately after. No filler, no restating of the name or 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?

With an output schema, full schema description coverage and rich annotations, the definition only needs to convey what it returns conceptually and the key caveat about interpreting it — both are present. Slightly short of 5 because it never points to where actual conversion data lives.

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 accountId, type and goalIds are fully documented in the schema itself, including the account-number caveat and the 'omit to read every goal' behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case.

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+resource: 'Read conversion goal configuration.' It is clearly distinct from siblings like bing_get_report, bing_get_campaigns, or bing_get_uet_tags by resource name. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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 line 'This does not establish that conversions are being recorded' implies the intended interpretation of results and hints the tool is for configuration, not performance measurement. However, it never names where to go for actual conversion counts (e.g., a reporting sibling) or states prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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