get_conversion_goals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds rich behavioral context: it explains the meaning of exclude_from_bidding and its relationship to bidding, lists other fields, and confirms the read-only nature. No contradictions.

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 detailed but efficient, front-loading the main purpose. Each sentence adds value: first states purpose, then explains key field, lists other fields, and gives usage advice. It is well-structured and not overly 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It provides key field explanations and a usage warning, making it complete for a simple, read-only tool with one optional parameter. The context signals indicate low complexity, and the description covers all necessary aspects.

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 100% for the single parameter (goal_ids), with a clear description. The tool's description adds 'Pass goal_ids to fetch specific goals,' which is similar to the schema description. It does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the score is at baseline.

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 it lists conversion goals, with the verb 'List' and resource 'conversion goals'. It specifies all types and the option to fetch specific ones via goal_ids. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_conversion_goal and update_conversion_goal.

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 tells the agent when to use the tool (list goals) and provides a specific guideline: confirm exclude_from_bidding is false before relying on a goal to drive spend, and points to update_conversion_goal as the sibling to flip it. It could be more explicit about when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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