call_eligibility_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It comprehensively explains the four checks, auto-resolution of account_id, configurable duration threshold, and the nuanced source detection logic. This fully informs the agent of the tool's 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 moderately long but well-structured with a summary, bulleted checks, and arg explanations. It is efficient and front-loaded. Could potentially be slightly more concise, but it earns its length with valuable information.

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 (multiple checks, configurable parameters, and a verdict output), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, criteria, parameter details, auto-resolution, and a summary of the return value. It is complete for effective agent usage.

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 must compensate. It does so thoroughly: explains call_id as the required identifier, account_id auto-resolves if omitted, and google_ads_min_duration_seconds defaults to 60 with guidance on when to override. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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's function: auditing whether a call is eligible to count as a Google Ads conversion. It specifies the action ('audit'), resource ('call'), and context ('Google Ads conversion eligibility'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly CRUD operations or other utilities.

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 the use case: 'where did my conversion go' debugging. It details the checks performed but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives. However, the purpose is specific enough that usage context is clear.

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