List Custom Conversions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral detail such as return formatting, pagination, or rate limits. It merely repeats the intended action 'Lists' without supplementing the annotation data.

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 concise, with a single sentence and an 'Args' list. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. No filler or redundancy. It could benefit from slight expansion, but for its simplicity it is appropriately sized.

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 there is no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., fields, format, or any filtering/pagination). It does not mention how response_format affects the output or any limitations. For a list operation, this is a significant gap—agents are left without knowing what to expect from the call.

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 50% (response_format documented). The description adds a brief label for ad_account_id ('Ad account ID') which is not in the schema, but this is trivial and does not explain format, validation, or usage nuances. The response_format parameter is left entirely to the schema, which already provides description. Overall the description contributes minimal value to parameter understanding.

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 states a clear verb 'Lists' and resource 'custom conversions' for a specific scope 'ad account'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_create_custom_conversion (create vs list) and meta_list_custom_audiences (conversions vs audiences). The purpose is immediately obvious.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like meta_get_custom_audience or meta_list_custom_audiences. The description is purely functional without usage context.

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