program_overview

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes a safe read operation, and the description adds the fixed 30-day scope and the funnel/revenue subject. It does not disclose return shape, aggregation level, or filtering behavior, which is a modest gap for a read-only report.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with subject then timeframe, with no filler. It is terse but not structurally wasteful.

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 zero-parameter read-only report, the description is enough to know it returns a 30-day funnel and revenue summary. However, with overlapping siblings and no output schema, it should say more about what the overview contains or how it differs from roi_summary to be fully complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the schema is empty. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (funnel and revenue overview) and a precise time scope (last 30 days), so the agent knows this is a reporting tool. It does not contrast with roi_summary or partner_performance, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as roi_summary or partner_performance. The fixed 30-day window is implied, but the description does not say when this overview is preferred over sibling reports.

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