conversion_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no safety contradiction exists. The description reinforces this with 'Inspect' and adds useful scoping detail like 'every conversion action', but it does not disclose deeper behavioral risks or constraints such as account-wide effects or latency. It adds moderate context beyond the annotation, but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a concise list of returned fields, followed by a decision-oriented usage rationale. No filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return structure. It covers the main decision context, the data fields, and the read-only nature. It falls slightly short only in explaining how date_range affects the conversion counts, but the schema provides the parameter default and the task context is otherwise complete.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the two parameters, especially date_range, which directly affects the conversion counts the tool reports. The description never mentions customer_id or date_range, leaving the agent to infer their meaning solely from the parameter names and default. This is a clear gap.

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 pair, 'Inspect conversion tracking', and enumerates exactly what is returned: status, category, counting type, bidding participation, and conversion counts. This clearly differentiates it from sibling performance or keyword tools, which focus on different entities and metrics.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to diagnose whether low conversion counts stem from a weak funnel or broken tracking, framing it as central to the autonomy gate. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the decision context is clear enough to guide selection.

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