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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the output shape and the row invariant converted + dropOff = entered, which is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Two sentences, tightly front-loaded with the resource and result shape, then followed by the row arithmetic invariant. Every sentence carries useful information with no repetition or filler.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned metrics and row-level invariant. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema covers most parameters; the main remaining gap is that funnelId's source and format are not clarified.

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 75%, with app, range, and environment documented in the schema. The description does not compensate for the undocumented funnelId parameter by naming its source (e.g., list_funnels) or format, though it does add the context that the funnel must be a saved funnel.

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 states a specific resource and scope: step-by-step conversion for one saved funnel over a range, including entries, continuations, conversion rate, and drop-off. It distinguishes this from list_funnels and create_funnel by focusing on results for a single saved funnel, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_funnels, get_breakdown, or get_retention. It implies the tool is for retrieving results from an already saved funnel, but no when/when-not conditions or prerequisites are stated.

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