diagnose_tracking

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds specific behavioral context by naming the technologies verified (gtag.js, GTM, pixel). It does not contradict annotations and provides additional transparency about the tool's scope.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide details. Every word is necessary, and there is no wasted text.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one param, read-only, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It could add what the result looks like (e.g., a report of issues), but the current text suffices for selection and invocation.

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% for the single parameter. The parameter description ('Website URL to check') aligns with the tool description. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if conversion tracking is properly set up on a website.' It specifies the resources checked (gtag.js, GTM, pixel), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_conversions' and 'create_conversion' which handle conversion data rather than diagnosing setup.

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 for diagnosing tracking setup, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'create_conversion' for creating new conversions). No exclusions or context are provided, so the 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.