Get Intent Report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns a funnel report for a service, and without proper authentication/payment returns a challenge. It does not detail output format but is sufficiently transparent.

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 a single, dense sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and payment model. No unnecessary words, well-structured with front-loaded action description.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, its prerequisites (key or payment), and the fallback behavior. It could mention return format but is complete enough for an agent.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the 'service' or 'window' parameters beyond what is in the schema, just pricing context about the key binding.

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: generating an intent report funnel for a specific service, listing components like bounce funnel, traffic classes, etc. It distinguishes from siblings like get_intent_trends by focusing on a single service's 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?

The description explains when to use the tool based on payment model (free with key, otherwise paid) and mentions the alternative of returning a payment challenge without proper credentials. It does not explicitly compare to siblings, but the context is clear enough.

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