google_ads_get_conversion_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'List' signals a read-only operation, and the description adds a meaningful caveat with 'when supported' for last activity dates, indicating that some fields may not be available for all conversion action types. It does not detail pagination, rate limits, or authentication, but provides solid field-level behavioral context.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence that begins with the action and lists the relevant output fields in a compact sequence. There is no filler, repetition, or extraneous context, so every word 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?

The description identifies the tool's purpose and output fields, which is adequate for basic selection. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, more detail would help: how statusFilter affects results, what 'when supported' means for specific conversion action types, and whether the list is limited to the customerId account. The schema covers invocation structure but not these behavioral nuances.

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 only 33%, with only customerId documented in the schema. The description does not explain limit or statusFilter semantics at all; 'status' is mentioned as an output field, not as a filter parameter. Since neither the description nor the schema clarifies two of the three parameters, the agent has limited guidance for invoking the tool correctly.

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 uses a clear, specific verb and resource: 'List conversion actions.' It enumerates the key output fields (status, type, category, flags, owner customer, last activity dates), which makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from all sibling getters. No other sibling targets conversion actions, so the resource is unambiguous.

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 this tool when you need conversion actions and their metadata. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools. The context is clear but not directly stated.

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