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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive; the description reinforces this by saying 'Read' and adds useful behavioral context—telemetry source, current-team scope, stage semantics, and the special counting rule for leadCaptured. It does not undermine or contradict the annotations.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and both sentences carry useful information. The first sentence is dense and somewhat run-on, but the details are relevant enough to justify their inclusion.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the data source, stages, channel breakdown, counting caveat, and intended use. Minor ambiguity in 'embedded flag' and the lack of explicit cross-references to sibling tools keep it from being fully complete.

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%: both formId and days are already documented with types, defaults, and bounds. The description only mirrors these as 'last N days,' adding little 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read the conversion funnel for a form') and enumerates the exact metrics returned—stages, per-channel funnel, UTM combos, and drop-off points. The stage order and the leadCaptured counting nuance make it unambiguous and readily distinguishable from sibling stats/retrieval tools like get_form_stats.

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 explicitly states the intended use ('Use this to find where respondents drop and improve conversion'), telling an agent when to prefer this tool. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full when/not guidance.

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