top_goals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the exact response shape and explains that visitors means unique converters, events means total conversions, and conversion_rate is unique converters as a percentage of all visitors in the period. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a concrete response example that earns its place because there is no output schema. It is slightly dense due to the inline JSON, but remains well-structured and free of fluff.

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 that no output schema exists, the description usefully provides the return shape and semantic definitions. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not state sort direction explicitly or describe edge cases like no matching goals, but it is still strong enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 the schema fully documents the site, limit, and period parameters. The description does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond referring to the period in the metric definition, so the baseline 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 ranks the site's configured goals by conversions, which is a specific verb plus resource. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like list_goals or top_sources, but the ranking-by-conversions phrasing makes the core purpose clear.

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 intended usage is implied: this is for seeing configured goals ordered by conversion performance. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_goals, query_stats, or top_custom_events, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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