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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful context that the calculation mirrors the 'Funil / Listas' screen tab and includes channel split and KPIs, but it does not discuss permissions, filters, or result shape beyond that.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the tool's domain and purpose. The arrow-chain stage list is dense but purposeful, and the final note tying it to the UI tab adds useful orientation without much waste.

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 metrics tool with fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough conceptual output detail: funnel stages, channel split, and KPIs, plus a reference to the equivalent UI tab. It could say more about return structure or whether counts/rates are included, but it is largely complete for invocation.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including list_id/list_name alternatives, the all-lists default, and the admin-only target_user_id. The description repeats the 'one list or all lists' distinction but adds no syntax, format, or precedence details 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?

The description identifies a specific computation: a lead funnel for one list or all lists, covering stages from raw list through LGPD to cadence, plus channel split and KPIs. It is clear what the tool returns conceptually, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling list/contact retrieval 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?

It implies usage for funnel analysis when a list or global funnel view is needed, and notes that omitting a list means all lists. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as list_lead_lists or list_contacts, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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