google_ads_monitoring_cv_goal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' discloses the hardcoded LAST_7_DAYS evaluation window, and details status thresholds and bottleneck routing logic. This goes well beyond minimal disclosure and gives the agent a clear picture of behavior.

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 dense but exceptionally well-organized: it starts with purpose, then return payload, routing rules, hardcoded window, Read-only flag, and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes complex logic digestible without unnecessary 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully enumerates the return structure, status values, bottleneck routing criteria, and evaluation window. It also covers the read-only nature and alternatives, leaving no critical gap for an agent to understand how to invoke and interpret the tool.

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?

The input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description repeats some threshold semantics already in the schema (e.g., 'warning' at 80%) but does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Evaluate a Google Ads campaign's daily conversion rate') and clearly identifies the bottleneck identification purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming google_ads_monitoring_cpa_goal and google_ads_performance_analyze as alternatives for different evaluation types.

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 provides explicit alternatives: 'For CPA-target evaluation use google_ads_monitoring_cpa_goal; for the underlying composite use google_ads_performance_analyze.' This clearly signals when to choose this tool over its siblings, satisfying the 'when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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