qobrix_funnel

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

The description discloses stage definitions, date-window scoping, optional assigned_to/agent scoping, and stage_overrides behavior. Since no annotations exist, this carries the transparency burden; it's mostly clear, though 'cos' in the Closed stage definition is ambiguous.

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?

At around 150 words, the description is dense but well-structured: state chain, scoping rule, override mechanism, then three examples. No redundant information; each sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the six stages and conversion %, the scoping rule, and override capability. The examples cover common use cases, making it sufficiently complete for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 already covers all parameters with 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful examples showing parameter combinations ({year}, {assigned_to, since_days}, {agent, year}) and clarifies stage_overrides semantics. This elevates understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 this is a sales funnel tool aggregating six stages (Leads, Qualified, Viewing, Offer, Reserved, Closed) with conversion percentages, distinguishing it from sibling list/search tools. It uses a specific verb 'Canonical sales funnel in one call' and details each stage's definition, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides three concrete example uses covering year, rolling days with CURRENT_USER, and agent-specific scoping, demonstrating when to invoke this tool. It doesn't explicitly compare against alternatives like qobrix_deals, but the examples imply this is the go-to for funnel metrics.

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