funnels_get_funnels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, pagination behavior, or side effects. Since the annotations carry the core safety info, a neutral score of 3 is appropriate; it neither contradicts nor enriches the behavioral picture.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification, which is penalized in other dimensions. For conciseness alone, it earns a 4, but it does not provide any structural elaboration that could aid comprehension.

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 has 7 parameters and a large sibling set, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not mention what funnels are returned, how filtering works, what the response format is (no output schema), or any usage caveats. The description provides almost no context beyond the bare action, making it inadequate for correct invocation without external knowledge.

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 only 14% (only locationId has a description). The description does not compensate for the missing parameter explanations—it says nothing about name, type, limit, offset, category, or parentId. With low schema coverage, the description should provide context for these parameters, but it remains silent. This is a critical gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch List of Funnels'. It is clear that the tool retrieves a list of funnels. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'funnels_get_pages_by_funnel_id' or 'funnels_fetch_redirects_list'. Since it lacks sibling differentiation, it does not achieve a 5 but is clearly more than a tautology.

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 does not mention any filtering scenarios, required context, or how it differs from other funnel-related tools. With many sibling tools, the lack of usage direction leaves the agent without selection criteria.

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