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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the description's job is return-shape disclosure, which it does: ids and steps but no metrics, page steps carry a match mode, and step_strings are portable to get_funnel. No output schema exists, so this context genuinely carries weight; only the pagination/site-scoping behavior is unstated.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information (metrics exclusion, match modes, step_strings portability, YAML source) with no repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, it conveys enough of the return structure (ids, steps, match modes, step_strings) to be usable without follow-up. Minor gaps remain around result ordering, pagination, and whether the list is site-scoped.

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 the single `site` parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about what `site` changes (whether results are scoped to one site's funnels), leaving it at the baseline.

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 (funnels saved in the dashboard) plus what the payload contains (ids and steps). It also explicitly separates itself from get_funnel (conversion numbers) and get_tracking_plan (analytics.yaml funnels), so an agent can pick it out of a 40-tool sibling list.

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?

Explicitly says this returns no numbers and routes the agent to get_funnel for conversion, and to get_tracking_plan for YAML-defined funnels. What's missing is a positive statement of when to use it (e.g. to fetch ids before update_funnel/delete_funnel), but the exclusion guidance is unusually strong.

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