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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are ordered and include 7-day and 30-day counts, but says nothing about ordering basis, pagination behavior, or what identifies a candidate.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The issue is under-specification rather than verbosity, so it scores well on conciseness alone.

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 five-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the description leaves too much unresolved: how to specify the product, what the history flag does, and how pagination works. The output schema may explain return values, but input-side completeness is inadequate.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains product_ref vs. product_name, what include_funnel_history changes, or how limit and cursor paginate.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("ordered funnel-step candidates") and adds the key measures (7-day and 30-day counts). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not distinguish itself from related siblings such as products_get_funnel_values or products_funnel_prepare.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call it before products_funnel_prepare or how it differs from products_get_funnel_values.

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