get_funnels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions return fields (name, steps, creation date) but does not discuss authorization, rate limits, or side effects. Since there is an output schema, the lack of full return structure details is acceptable.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds useful return information and a link to a sibling tool. Every word serves a purpose.

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 no parameters and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, return fields, and relation to get_funnel_analysis. It could mention that it returns a list, but this is implied.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by describing what the tool returns, which is beyond the empty schema. This compensates for the absence of parameter explanations.

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), resource (conversion funnels), and scope (defined for this site). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_funnel_analysis, which deals with analysis rather than definitions.

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 by linking to get_funnel_analysis for conversion rates, indicating when to use this tool vs. its sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other listing tools like get_anomalies.

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