openpanel_get_funnel_conversion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but only minimal context ('detailed', 'each step'). It does not clarify if this aggregates data in real-time, uses cached data, has query cost implications, or what the response structure looks like.

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?

Extremely brief at one sentence, but prefixed with unexplained noise '[UNIFIED]' that wastes valuable description space without adding semantic value. Otherwise efficient, though bordering on under-specification.

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?

With 4 parameters (0% described), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide substantial compensatory context. It provides almost none, leaving the agent without guidance on required identifiers, date formats, or return value structure.

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 0% and the description fails to compensate. Critical parameters like 'site' (format unclear), 'project_id', and 'funnel_id' are undocumented. The 'date_range' parameter format (default '30d') is not explained despite having a string/null union type.

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 clear action ('Get') and resource ('detailed conversion rates for each funnel step'), identifying this as an analytics retrieval tool. However, it fails to distinguish from siblings like 'openpanel_get_funnel' or 'openpanel_get_funnel_breakdown', leaving ambiguity about which funnel-related tool to use.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'openpanel_compare_funnels' for cross-funnel analysis or 'openpanel_get_funnel' for configuration data). No mention of prerequisites like existing funnel setup.

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