Custom conversion goals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the conditional behavior (campaign config only returned when campaign_id is supplied) and by explaining the domain concept of a custom conversion goal. No auth or rate-limit context, so not a 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return contents, followed by a useful definition of the resource. Slightly verbose in the third paragraph (the 'bundles conversion actions into a named set' explanation is context, not operation), but every sentence carries information and nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, yet the description gives an accurate summary of the payload. For a two-optional-parameter read tool with full annotations, the definition covers purpose, usage context and conditional behavior adequately; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented (campaign_id optional, customer_id defaults to configured account). The description reinforces the optional campaign behavior and names goal_config_level enum values, but adds little syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Read the custom conversion goals and the campaign goal configuration.' It enumerates exactly what is returned (name, status, conversion actions, plus optional goal config levels). An agent can distinguish this read tool from the many draft_*custom_conversion_goal* siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear usage context: 'Ahead of drafting, this shows which goals exist, which actions they contain and what a campaign currently uses,' which positions it as a pre-flight read before the draft_* tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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