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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is 'aggregate only,' which is a key behavioral trait, and 'use to see real usage' suggests a read-only observation tool. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, rate limits, or the absence of writes. For a simple aggregate query this is minimally adequate but not richly transparent.

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?

The description is only two sentences long. The first sentence names the funnel and its components, front-loading the most important information. The second sentence adds a limitation and a use case. There is no filler, repetition, or extraneous detail – every word earns its place.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what the returned funnel represents. It lists metrics but leaves terms like '402 challenges' and 'funded watches' undefined, which could confuse an agent about interpreting results. It also does not explain how the 'hours' window changes the aggregation. It is adequate for invoking the tool but not fully complete.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter 'hours' with its default (168 = 7 days), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional semantic detail about how the time window affects the funnel metrics; it does not mention the parameter at all. Since the schema handles the parameter well, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate – no added value but no deficiency.

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 clearly identifies the tool as an agent-income funnel and enumerates the specific metrics it aggregates (reach, 402 challenges, trial claims, paid calls, distinct paying wallets, funded watches). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like webcap_trial_claim_analyze or webcap_analyze, which focus on narrower aspects. The absence of an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list' is a minor gap, but the overall purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Aggregate only; use to see real usage' gives a clear use case and a limitation: this tool provides aggregate numbers, not detailed breakdowns. It implies when not to use it (if you need per-record data), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions for selecting siblings. The guidance is present but not fully fleshed out.

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