google_ads_monitoring_cv_goal

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it is read-only, has a fixed 7-day window, details bottleneck routing logic (impression/ctr/cvr), and explains status thresholds (healthy/warning/critical). All critical behavioral traits are covered.

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 purpose and return structure, but it is somewhat long due to listing the entire return payload. Still, every sentence adds value and no waste.

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 tool's complexity (bottleneck routing, thresholds, multiple return fields) and lack of output schema, the description covers all necessary context: return shape, status thresholds, bottleneck logic, window, and suggested workflows.

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%. The description adds some nuance (e.g., customer_id optional fallback, target_cv_daily threshold behavior) but mostly repeats what's in 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?

The description clearly states the tool evaluates daily conversion rate against a target and identifies the dominant bottleneck. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like google_ads_monitoring_cpa_goal and google_ads_performance_analyze by explicitly noting their different purposes.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'For CPA-target evaluation use google_ads_monitoring_cpa_goal; for the underlying composite use google_ads_performance_analyze.' Also specifies the evaluation window is hardcoded to LAST_7_DAYS.

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