get_funnel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well by enumerating the returned metrics (reached, share of first step, share of previous step, lost, biggest drop). It implies a safe read via 'get' but does not state permissions or the exact output shape.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the parameter modes packed into the second. No filler, every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully explains the return metrics, and it covers all three invocation modes. It is nearly complete for a read tool, missing only the max-90d/default-range behavior that the schema already documents.

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 only 50% (id and name are undocumented in the schema), and the description compensates by explaining that name or id select a saved funnel while steps defines an unsaved one. This adds meaning beyond the structured fields for the two bare parameters.

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 verb and resource ('get_funnel' -> 'Where visitors drop off') and details exactly what the tool surfaces per step (reached, share of first/previous, lost, biggest drop). The purpose is unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like create_funnel or delete_funnel.

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?

It spells out the three invocation modes clearly: 'Pass name or id for a saved funnel, steps to try an unsaved one, or nothing to get every saved funnel.' That is strong when-to-use guidance, though it stops short of naming alternative tools for adjacent tasks.

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