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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by revealing the exact return shape with fields such as id, name, scope, and steps_count, which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 tight sentence states the purpose and downstream use, followed immediately by a compact JSON example. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 list tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains purpose, provides a concrete return sample, and the schema covers the site parameter. An agent has everything needed to call it 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional 'site' parameter, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'List' and resource 'conversion funnels configured for a site', and states the discovery purpose: obtaining a funnel_id for funnel_report. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_goals, create_funnel, and funnel_report.

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 gives a clear usage context: use this for discovery before calling funnel_report. It does not spell out exclusions or alternatives like list_goals, but the stated purpose is enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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