Get Funnel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Analyze event funnels' and mentions the step requirement; it does not disclose defaults (e.g., days=30, window=86400), return format, or mutation effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words, but it is notably terse given the tool has 4 parameters and no other documentation; still, efficiency counts for something.

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?

Considering the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It omits default behaviors, expected output, prerequisite setup (e.g., project_id), and any interpretation guidance—leaving the agent under-informed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema; the '2-8 event names' note is already present in the schema's description for 'steps'. It does not compensate for parameter behavior or edge cases.

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 states a specific verb + resource ('Analyze event funnels') and adds a key constraint (requires 2-8 event names as steps). This is clear and distinguishes it from siblings like get_retention or get_insights, though it doesn't explicitly call out alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage hint is the requirement for 2-8 event names, which is more of a parameter constraint than contextual guidance. There are no exclusions or suggested scenarios.

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