query_funnel_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool's purpose and prerequisite but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or error handling. The description adds some context about use cases but does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first: 'Get data for a funnel based on a funnel_id.' The subsequent sentences add useful context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying use cases and prerequisites, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose, use cases, and a prerequisite, but lacks details on behavioral aspects, response format, or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be needed for full completeness, but it meets a minimum viable level.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). Thus, it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting without extra 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: 'Get data for a funnel based on a funnel_id.' It specifies the verb ('Get data') and resource ('a funnel'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning the prerequisite tool 'list_saved_funnels' for obtaining funnel IDs, which sets it apart from other query/report tools like query_frequency_report or query_insights_report.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Useful for analyzing user conversion paths, identifying drop-off points in user journeys, and optimizing multi-step processes.' It also explicitly states a prerequisite: 'Funnel IDs should be retrieved using the list_saved_funnels tool.' However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, which prevents a perfect score.

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