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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive context beyond them: what the response contains and the diagnostic distinction that an empty run and a no-op run look identical without the funnel — real behavioral insight with no output schema present.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the usage cue, then the justification. Every sentence carries information, though the em-dash gloss of 'FUNNEL' is slightly 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of conveying the return shape (status, counts, funnel-by-reason) and its interpretive value. It omits error/edge behavior for bad run_id or connection_id, but is otherwise sufficient to call correctly.

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% and both params are documented in-schema (including the 'call list_runs first' prerequisite), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional syntax or format meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One run's detail') and enumerates the payload: status, written/failed counts, and the FUNNEL by reason. This cleanly separates it from get_run_records (per-record detail) and list_runs (collection).

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?

'Read this after dispatching' gives a clear timing cue, and the closing sentence explains why the tool is needed at all. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, though the schema params route the caller through list_runs/list_crm_connections first.

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