Analyze Funnel

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the tool returns counts and drop-off rates, which is useful, but it doesn't elaborate on how drop-off is calculated, data freshness, or any limits. With annotations covering behavior, this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then immediately states the return value. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description states the high-level return shape (visitor counts and drop-off rates per step). Combined with the fully-described input schema and safety annotations, an agent has enough context to invoke and interpret basic results. It lacks mention of result limits or date-range behavior, but those are minor for a read-only analysis tool.

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 coverage is 100%—every parameter has a description, so the description doesn't need to repeat parameter details. It does reinforce the meaning of the `steps` parameter by mentioning page visits/events, but adds no nuance beyond the schema (e.g., date range semantics, filter behavior). Baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Analyze'), a specific resource ('a custom funnel'), and the key output ('visitor counts and drop-off rates'). The word 'custom' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_funnels or create_funnel, making it clear this is for ad-hoc funnel analysis rather than interacting with saved funnels.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to analyze a funnel by defining steps on the fly. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., 'use get_funnel_step_sessions for saved funnels'), so it lacks the strongest possible routing guidance, but the context is clear enough to separate it from most siblings.

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