query_funnel_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the core concept; it does not contradict annotations, but also does not disclose pagination, ordering requirements, or return characteristics, though output schema covers some of this.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently and is appropriately sized for the 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?

Given the tool has four parameters with nested objects and the description provides no parameter semantics, usage guidance, or behavioral disclosure, the description is too thin to be fully useful. While the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the lack of explanation for key concepts like conversion_window and steps limits completeness.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the four parameters (steps, filters, time_range, conversion_window) or their semantics. The nested structure and units (e.g., conversion_window) are left entirely to the schema, which does not explain their meaning in the context of funnel analysis.

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 the tool queries conversion across an ordered sequence of event steps, which is a clear and specific definition of funnel analysis. It distinguishes from sibling tools like retention or path analysis by focusing on sequential conversion, though the verb 'query' is generic.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_path_analysis or query_retention_analysis. The use case is implied by the description (conversion across steps), but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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