List Instagram DM funnels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds valuable detail beyond these: it lists the returned data (Draft/Active state, account and post snapshots, keywords, today's reserved send usage, poll errors, reconnect state) and explicitly states 'side-effect-free' and 'no MCP activation tool,' which are extra behavioral traits.

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 relatively concise at two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. However, it contains some redundancy: 'This is read-only' and 'CAPABILITY: read — side-effect-free' largely repeat the annotations, and the long list of return fields makes the first sentence a bit dense.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description provides a strong return-field inventory and a clear safety profile, which helps an agent understand what to expect. However, it lacks parameter explanations and does not mention usage alternatives, so it is not fully complete for making an informed invocation decision.

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 does not mention any of the five parameters (limit, scope, active, cursor, integrationId). The schema provides names and constraints, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving parameter meaning unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('this organization's post-scoped Instagram DM funnels'), listing several included fields. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_funnel_hits (which counts hits) and create_dm_funnel (which creates) by focusing on listing funnels and their state.

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 for when you need to view DM funnels, and the 'post-scoped' qualifier provides some context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The note 'deliberately no MCP activation tool' is a caveat but not a substitute for explicit when-to-use versus sibling tools.

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