Get HitKeep Funnel Stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Read' aligns with those. The description adds a useful scoping detail ('one configured funnel') and clarifies the data dimensions returned (step visitors, drop-off, conversion), but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, auth requirements, or side effects. With annotations present, this meets the baseline but does not exceed it significantly.

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, efficiently worded sentence: 'Read aggregate step visitors, drop-off, and conversion for one configured funnel.' Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff 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 presence of an output schema and strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description is nearly complete for a simple read tool. It communicates the core purpose and the single-funnel scoping. A minor gap is that it doesn't clarify potential time range defaults, but these are covered by the schema's parameter descriptions. Overall, it's sufficient and only misses minor supplementary details.

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 all four parameters (site_id, funnel_id, from, to) are already fully documented. The description does not add any extra meaning or context for parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and identifies a precise resource: 'aggregate step visitors, drop-off, and conversion for one configured funnel.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hitkeep_get_event_breakdown or hitkeep_get_site_overview, which focus on other metrics.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the resource named but does not mention exclusions, alternatives, or scenarios. There is no 'use this when...' or comparison to sibling tools.

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