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

Annotations already cover safety with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about what the returned funnel contains, but it does not disclose additional behavior like error handling, permissions, or response structure. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. The key qualifier 'complete' is front-loaded, followed by a concise enumeration of the returned components, making it easy to scan and act on.

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 simple, read-only, single-parameter getter with an output schema and full annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly point users to list_funnels when a summary is sufficient, but nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool 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 the only parameter, _id, is already described as 'Chasync funnel ID.' The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, but the schema fully documents the single required input, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('get a complete funnel') and names the content — steps, email variants, waits, and routing rules — which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_funnels or save_funnel. The qualifier 'complete' communicates that this returns the full object, not a summary.

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 implies when to use it: when a complete funnel object is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as list_funnels for lighter listing use cases or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is left to inference from the word 'complete' and the sibling list.

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