get_engagement_funnel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the PRO plan requirement and indicates the output scope (funnel metrics), but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe any potential side effects, error conditions, or pagination behavior. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but more explicit behavioral disclosure would improve this.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core action and metrics, and the second provides usage context and the plan requirement. 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?

Given a single simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what metrics are retrieved, how to use it, and the permission requirement. It lacks detail on the exact return format (e.g., data structure, time range), but for a simple analytics tool this is generally sufficient, making it slightly above baseline.

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%, so the single parameter event_id is already fully described in the schema. The description adds context about the event's funnel but no additional meaning about the parameter itself (format, source, constraints). Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting; no significant additive value from the description.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('engagement funnel for a specific event'), then enumerates the exact metrics returned (issued, accepted, viewed, shared, clicked). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_events and issue_certificates, which serve different functions.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use to understand event performance' and notes the PRO plan requirement. While it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, the sibling list makes differentiation easy. This is 'clear context, no exclusions,' fitting a 4.

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