funn.to Funnel Generator

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 mentions the output ('hosted landing page URL') and a key constraint ('No account needed'), but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what happens if inputs are invalid. It adds some context but is incomplete for a tool that generates hosted content.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by output and a key constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (generating hosted content with style customization), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and output but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits or error responses, which are important for such a tool. It meets minimum viability but could be more 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by summarizing the purpose ('from a product URL') and implying the 'axes' parameter's role in styling, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, but the concise integration of parameter intent elevates it slightly.

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 states the specific action ('generate an Amazon affiliate sales funnel'), resource ('from a product URL'), and output ('returns a hosted landing page URL'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_funnel_status' (which checks status) and 'list_axes' (which lists style options) by focusing on creation.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'No account needed,' which suggests accessibility, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_funnel_status' for checking existing funnels or 'list_axes' for exploring style options. It provides some guidance but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'status, progress, and URL when ready', which adds some behavioral context (e.g., it's a read operation with potential async behavior). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent, which are important for a status-checking tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key return details. There's no wasted text, making it appropriately sized and structured for clarity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (status checking with one parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and returns, but lacks details on error cases, async behavior, or integration with siblings, leaving gaps in completeness for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'slug' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of a funnel being generated'), and mentions what it returns. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'generate_funnel' (which likely creates funnels) or 'list_axes' (which likely lists something else), so it doesn't fully differentiate from 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a funnel must be generated first), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'generate_funnel' or 'list_axes', leaving usage context unclear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that each axis is a '0-100 spectrum', which adds useful behavioral context about the output format. However, it lacks details on potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral traits unspecified.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence and adds a concise second sentence for usage context. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without any waste or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for its purpose. It explains what the tool does and how to use the output, though it could benefit from more details on output structure or error handling to be fully comprehensive.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary details.

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 states the verb ('List') and resource ('available style axes for funnel generation'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on listing axes rather than generating or checking status of funnels.

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 provides clear context for usage ('Use these to customize the funnel style in generate_funnel'), indicating when to use this tool in relation to the sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_funnel_status.

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