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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. Beyond annotations the description adds only the word "saved," which hints these are pre-configured funnels rather than computed ones but does not say whether the list is paginated, whether it can be empty, or what each entry contains.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but this is brevity by omission rather than a front-loaded, information-dense lead. There is no structure to speak of beyond one noun phrase.

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-parameter read-only list call with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the definition is thin but not blocking: an agent can invoke it correctly. What is missing is conceptual context, namely what a funnel is in this product and how list_funnels relates to get_funnel, which keeps it from a higher score.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and that description already explains the id-or-domain format and points to list_websites. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 is a noun fragment, "The website's saved funnels," that essentially restates the tool name and title without a verb. It does add the scoping notion (per-website, "saved"), but it never says it returns a list, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_funnel.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of get_funnel as the alternative for a single funnel, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the enumeration step preceding get_funnel.

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