google_ads_monitoring_cv_goal

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It declares read-only, hardcoded window LAST_7_DAYS, status thresholds, bottleneck logic, and return structure including performance_analysis payload. Fully transparent.

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?

Relatively long but well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then return fields, bottleneck routing, hardcoded window, read-only note, sibling differentiation. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise.

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 complexity (multiple return fields, decision logic) and no output schema, description comprehensively covers purpose, parameters, return structure, thresholds, routing, and usage context. Complete for an AI agent.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds context beyond schema: explains target_cv_daily threshold (warning at 80%+, critical below), mentions how to obtain campaign_id, and fallback for customer_id. Adds significant value.

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 a campaign's daily conversion rate against a target and identifies the dominant bottleneck. It specifies the return structure and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like google_ads_monitoring_cpa_goal and google_ads_performance_analyze.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (evaluate conversion rate vs target) and provides alternatives: 'For CPA-target evaluation use google_ads_monitoring_cpa_goal; for the underlying composite use google_ads_performance_analyze.' Also details bottleneck routing logic.

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