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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is carried. The description adds the useful 'clear' semantic (passing null resets rather than mutates), but says nothing about the 100-prompt bulk limit, permissions, or reversibility that a destructive tool should surface.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficient, though arguably too terse for a five-required-parameter destructive bulk operation.

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 5-param, all-required, bulk, destructive mutation with no output schema, the description leaves too much unsaid: what clearing does to analytics history, whether setting is idempotent, and what a successful call returns.

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 40%, and the two documented params (context, llm_model) are analytics-only boilerplate. The description's 'set or clear' does usefully imply that funnelStage accepts null to clear, but it says nothing about promptIds (up to 100) or advertiserProjectId.

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 ('set or clear'), a specific attribute ('funnel stage'), and the resource ('tracked AI Visibility prompts'). Distinguishable from siblings, but it never names an alternative like classify-llm-prompts to clarify when funnel staging differs from classification.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. project ownership), and no alternatives named. The 'or clear' hints at a negative case but doesn't say when an agent should clear versus set.

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