get_conversion_actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'nil ids returns all goals of the given types,' but this is confusing because the schema has zero parameters, so 'nil ids' and 'types' are undefined. No return format, side effects, permissions, or error behavior are described. The description actively misleads by referencing non-existent inputs.

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 extremely short (one sentence), but it is not effectively concise because it omits essential information and includes ambiguous references. The front-loaded phrase 'Conversion goals' does not communicate the action, and the parenthetical about nil ids is more confusing than helpful. Under-specification, not conciseness, is the issue.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should be sufficient to understand purpose and usage. It is not. It does not explain what conversion actions are, what data is returned, or how to differentiate this from similar tools like get_entities or run_report. The description is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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?

The schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 according to instructions. However, the description introduces phantom parameters ('nil ids' and 'given types') that are not part of the schema. This adds confusion rather than value, effectively misleading the agent about how to call the tool. No actual parameter semantics are clarified.

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 'Conversion goals' is a noun phrase, not an explicit action. It implies retrieval but never states the verb (e.g., 'list' or 'get'). It also references 'nil ids' and 'given types,' which suggest parameters that do not exist in the schema, creating ambiguity about what the tool actually returns. While it vaguely points to conversion goals, it fails to clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_entities or run_report.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_conversion_action or set_conversion_action_primary_status. The description gives no context about typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to guess whether this is for reading conversion data or something else.

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