call_eligibility_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the internal detection logic (using source slug and gclid, not source_name) and the configurable duration threshold, which adds valuable context. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but 'audit' strongly implies no side effects. It also mentions the return format (verdict + pass/fail + remediation), which is helpful. It doesn't cover error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only diagnostic tool, this is sufficient.

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 structured with a clear opening purpose, a numbered list of checks, and a separate paragraph for parameter semantics. It front-loads the main purpose and then provides organized detail. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to parse. It is appropriately detailed without being verbose.

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?

The description is complete for the tool's complexity. It covers the eligibility criteria, the parameters, and the return format (verdict + pass/fail + remediation). The output schema is not shown, but the description already summarizes what the output contains. There is no missing information that an agent would need to call this tool correctly.

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: it explains call_id ('CAL... id'), google_ads_min_duration_seconds (threshold, default 60, override rationale), and account_id (auto-resolves if omitted). Each parameter's meaning and usage are clearly articulated, going well beyond the bare schema defaults and types.

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, specific purpose: auditing whether a call is eligible as a Google Ads conversion, explicitly tied to 'where did my conversion go' debugging. It names the exact verb and resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_call and call_summary by focusing on eligibility criteria rather than general call data.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (for conversion debugging) and outlines the checks performed, which implies its scope. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for different use cases, but the debugging context and specific checks make the intended usage clear. A minor gap is not explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g., for general call details), but this is adequately implied.

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