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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it is SLOW on campaigns with many leads, walks every activity row, and may not complete at all. It does not describe return shape or pagination, but the performance warning is valuable.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, then immediately gives the performance caveat and the faster alternative. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only analytics tool with no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description provides enough context: what the funnel represents, the performance risk, and the recommended alternative. It does not explain the exact returned stages or metric fields, but that is a minor gap given the structured schema and annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are documented in the schema: campaignId with its source, and range with date format and alias details. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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-like operation, resource, and scope: stage-by-stage conversion for one campaign over a window. It explicitly clarifies the underlying question ('where are we losing people'), which distinguishes it from generic analytics and campaign tools.

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?

Names a concrete alternative, `sequence_step_stats`, and explains exactly when to prefer it: on large campaigns where this tool is slow or may not complete. This is explicit when/when-not guidance tied to a sibling.

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