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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. What the description adds beyond them is the substantive part: the comparison window (7 days vs prior week), the drop-off focus, and the reason categories (errors, failed requests, slow page, struggling, devices). With no output schema present, this return-content detail is the description's main contribution.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the subject ('The journeys Relia follows') before enumerating metrics and reason categories. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical example list and trailing 'plus goals…' clause make it a long read.

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 one-optional-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what an agent needs: what data comes back, the time window, and the diagnostic breakdown. The only real omission is how this differs from the other analytics siblings.

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?

There is only one optional parameter and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, including the conditional rule about tokens spanning multiple projects. The description adds nothing about the project parameter, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented 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 names a concrete resource (conversion funnels such as checkout and sign up) and states exactly what it reports: completion counts for the last 7 days versus the prior week, the step with the biggest loss, and the reasons for leaving. It is not tautological, but it never contrasts itself with near-neighbors like relia_dashboard or relia_vitals, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative. The phrase 'goals no funnel follows yet' hints at a coverage-gap use case, but the agent gets no guidance on choosing this tool over relia_dashboard or relia_status, nor on any prerequisite such as having funnels configured.

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