goal_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a hint of report contents (denominator, repeated occurrences, missing identity), and with an output schema present that content is largely redundant, so it contributes little beyond the structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the date-window rule, in two compact sentences with no filler. The phrasing is clipped ('repeated occurrences and missing identity') but not wasteful.

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?

Annotations and an output schema are available, so return values need no explanation. The gap is the required goal_id, which is unexplained anywhere, and the absence of any sibling differentiation for a report tool among many report siblings.

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 the description carries the full burden and it does explain the date_from/date_to vs days precedence clearly. However, goal_id is required yet never described, leaving the single mandatory parameter undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific resource (goal conversion) and the measurement basis (unique visitors with a pageview then this goal), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from generic query tools. It falls short of 5 because it never names or contrasts with the close sibling funnel_report, so the boundary between the two is left to inference.

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 date guidance ('use date_from/date_to together... otherwise days determines it') is real usage direction, but it is purely about parameter mechanics. There is no when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance despite several report siblings (funnel_report, retention_report, breakdown), leaving tool selection implied.

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