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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about what data is included (state, unpublished edits, whose edits they are), but it does not disclose operational details such as pagination, ordering, or behavior when a bot has no funnels. No contradiction with annotations.

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 one compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource, and the parenthetical status translations pack useful information without filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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?

The description covers the output fields, and annotations cover safety, but it omits explicit list semantics, possible filtering, and any relationship to sibling tools. Since there is no output schema, the description should more clearly state that this returns all funnels for the given bot.

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 0%, but the only parameter, bot_id, is self-evident and the description's 'Воронки бота' points to the bot context. The description does not explicitly explain that bot_id selects the bot, so it does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation, but the parameter is simple enough to infer.

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The description identifies the resource (bot funnels) and the key output dimensions: status, presence of unpublished edits, and ownership. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', relying on the tool name, and it does not explicitly distinguish this from get_funnel or check_funnel, but the scope is clear enough.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use list_funnels versus get_funnel, check_funnel, or other siblings. There are no alternatives, exclusions, or conditions mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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