call_eligibility_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the exact checks performed, the detection logic (including the source_name caveat), and the return structure (verdict + criteria + remediation). This adds significant behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-point checks. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise, but the detail is justified.

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 criteria, parameter details, return structure outlined), and that an output schema exists, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and behavioral caveats without needing further elaboration.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaningful details: call_id is described as 'CAL... id', google_ads_min_duration_seconds has explanation of default and override, account_id says 'Auto-resolves if omitted.' This fully explains the parameters beyond type and title.

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 verb 'audit whether a specific call is/was eligible to count as a Google Ads conversion,' identifying the resource (call) and purpose (eligibility check). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_call or call_summary by focusing on conversion eligibility debugging.

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 says 'Useful for where did my conversion go debugging' and details four specific checks. It provides a clear use case and warns about the source_name caveat. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention when not to use it, leaving room for improvement.

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