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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations do not: the default window when from/to are omitted (last 30 days) and the dimensions the response is aggregated over, which tells the agent the call is a time-windowed aggregation.

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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loading what the tool produces before the date-default caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 needs to hint at return content, and it does by listing the funnel facets. Combined with the default-window note and full schema coverage for the three parameters, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only finer output shape and granularity details are absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so formats (YYYY-MM-DD, project time) and project_id provenance are already documented. The description adds the meaningful default semantics for the optional from/to pair, but adds nothing about inclusive/exclusive bounds or timezone handling beyond what the schema states.

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 clear resource and scope: it converts a period of dialogs into a funnel view and enumerates the breakdowns returned (funnel steps, sources, cohorts, lost leads). It is distinguishable from dosai_get_overview or dosai_get_followup_stats by those named facets, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the other analytics siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the funnel/metrics view, but there is no statement of when to pick this over dosai_get_analytics, dosai_get_overview, or dosai_get_money_by_day, and no prerequisites beyond the obvious project_id. The default-window note tells the agent the call works without dates but not why to use it.

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