check_conversion_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a key behavior — explaining rather than querying a provider — but does not describe what the explanation contains, what side effects exist, or what happens with the provided eventId. The negative behavior is disclosed, but little else is.

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 a single sentence with no filler and front-loads the core action. It is appropriately short, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting input/output details that would make it more useful.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what the input should be, what the output looks like, or how this tool differs from related verification tools. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly based on this definition alone.

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% and the description makes no mention of eventId at all. The agent cannot tell from the description what eventId means, why it is optional, or how it relates to verifying a conversion. The parameter is currently a bare string with no added semantic value.

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 action — explaining how to verify a conversion — and adds an important scoping detail: no provider querying is involved. It does not explicitly tie the action to the 'status' implied by the tool name or mention the eventId resource, so it is clear but not fully precise.

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 gives one contextual clue ('without querying a provider') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_conversion_delivery or diagnose_missing_click_ids. It does not say when not to use it or name any sibling alternatives.

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