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

The read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations already cover the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns both draft and published versions, includes a version number for editing, and explicitly warns that people counts are numbers without names.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main deliverable appears first, and every clause adds information. The final clarification about counts being numeric and omitting names is valuable, not redundant.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the expected return contents. It does not explain possible edge cases like a missing draft or published version, but the core information needed to call it is present.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate by explaining funnel_id. It does not mention the parameter at all, although the parameter name itself is fairly self-explanatory.

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 states exactly what the tool returns: the draft and published funnel versions, the draft version number, and per-block counts. It is clear and maps to the resource, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not name a sibling to differentiate from.

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 note that the draft version number is 'нужен для правки' (needed for editing) implies a use case for this tool. However, it does not give explicit when-to-use versus alternative tools such as get_funnel_format or check_funnel.

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