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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Since no output schema exists, the metric list does add some value by signaling the shape of the response, but it says nothing about date-range defaulting, currency handling, or cost/pagination.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, so it is concise, but the space saved comes at the cost of under-specification. Nothing is front-loaded about what the tool returns as a structured object or how to call it.

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?

With 9 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the definition should carry far more weight. An agent cannot determine date-range semantics, funnel identity resolution, or include behavior from this one metric list.

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% across 9 parameters, and the description only obliquely names four of the `include` enum values (steps, sources, trend, recent orders). Key parameters like `funnel` vs `funnel_ref`, `period` vs `from`/`to` interactions, `sales_currency: all`, and `days` (1-365) are entirely undocumented.

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 is a noun list of metrics ("revenue, orders, AOV, conversion, steps, sources, trend and recent orders") with no verb, so the agent must infer it retrieves funnel analytics. It does implicitly distinguish itself from funnels_list, but the purpose is only implied rather than stated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus analytics_query, analytics_report, sales_get, or funnels_list. The agent gets no condition, prerequisite, or exclusion to select between the many analytics-adjacent siblings.

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