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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only, computed on demand from the execution log.' It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation: the 30-day window, the on-demand computation model, and the exact set of metrics. It does not describe the exact output shape, but no output schema exists and the metric list is fairly complete.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: expected metrics, the differentiator from the funnel sibling, source of flow ids, and read-only/on-demand nature. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has no filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description covers the return semantics well by listing the measured quantities. It also handles parameter sourcing and the tool's read-only safety profile. Minor omissions like exact response formatting or pagination are not critical for this tool, but a fully explicit return structure would push it to 5.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent to pass flow ids from get_workspace_summary or the flow index, which clarifies where to source the required parameter. The schema already handles the 1–5 limit, applicationId defaults, and error behavior, so the description is not overburdened.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Measure how NAMED flows are actually used') and enumerates the concrete metrics returned (contacts entered, per-block stop rate, human-agent answers, errors). It also distinguishes itself from get_funnel_analytics, so an agent can tell the tools apart without inspecting schemas.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with get_funnel_analytics, explaining that the funnel cannot see flows reached via menu buttons, sequences, or handoffs, and that this tool works for ANY flow. It also tells the agent where to get the flow ids (get_workspace_summary or the flow index), giving clear when-to-use and sourcing guidance.

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