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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context about what the funnel stages mean, but says nothing about return shape, aggregation unit, or EUDI-specific handling beyond a passing mention.

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 core concept and wastes nothing. It is slightly cryptic in phrasing ('How far a period's checks got'), which costs a bit of immediate comprehension.

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 read-only analytics tool with 4 schema-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the conceptual output (funnel stages) but leaves the shape of the response and its distinction from sibling breakdown tools unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so from/to/mode/project_id are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how mode interacts with the funnel stages), so the baseline of 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 enumerates the funnel stages (created, a wallet answered, completed, fetched by a wallet), which makes the resource and its distinctive funnel/conversion semantics clear. It stops short of an explicit verb or naming a sibling (get_summary, get_breakdown) to contrast against, so an agent must infer differentiation.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_summary, get_breakdown, get_timeseries, or get_failure_breakdown, and no conditions or exclusions are given. Usage must be inferred entirely from the stage list.

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