ga_run_funnel_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context on how steps map to events, the eventName default, and the filterExpression override, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states what the tool does in the first sentence and immediately provides the most important step-matching behavior in the second. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary filler.

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 nested schema and lack of an output schema, the description is adequate for invoking the tool but leaves gaps: it doesn't describe what the funnel report output contains, pagination, or how to choose among the many report siblings. The schema and annotations cover the core invocation details, so this is not severely incomplete.

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 description adds slight interpretive value for funnelSteps, especially the per-step eventName default and filterExpression override, but much of this is already present in the input schema. Other parameters like dateRanges, funnelBreakdown, and funnelVisualizationType receive no additional clarification beyond the 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 the action ('Run') and the resource ('a funnel analysis report') with a specific goal ('track user progression through steps'). It also identifies the API version. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling ga_run_report, the funnel-specific wording makes it reasonably distinguishable.

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?

Usage is implied by the funnel-report framing and by the step-matching explanation, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Alternatives such as ga_run_report, ga_run_pivot_report, or ga_run_realtime_report are not mentioned, leaving routing to inference.

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