Sales Funnel Analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the output contents (counts, values, conversion rates), which is useful. No contradiction with annotations.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource. It immediately conveys the funnel stages and outputs, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool is a read-only analytics function with full schema coverage and rich annotations. The description covers the core purpose and outputs, which is sufficient for most use cases. It does not mention the period/date-range precedence, but that is already documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already well-documented (period enum, date range patterns, response_format enum). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline score for full schema coverage.

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 ('Analyze'), a defined resource ('sales funnel'), and the stages involved (offers → orders → invoices). It also mentions the metrics shown (counts, values, conversion rates), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fortnox_invoice_summary or fortnox_order_pipeline.

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 a clear context for when to use the tool: when analyzing the sales funnel from offers to invoices. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the stated stages and metrics make the intended use obvious relative to siblings.

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