ga_run_funnel_report

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: each step matches an event, eventName defaults to the step name, and filterExpression overrides eventName. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it doesn't discuss topics like auth or rate limits.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence provides necessary detail. No redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema, the description covers the trickiest part (event matching logic) well. However, it omits any mention of funnelBreakdown or funnelVisualizationType, though these are optional and already described in the schema.

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 about 50%, and the description compensates by clarifying key parameter semantics: 'set eventName per step (defaults to the step name)' and 'pass a full filterExpression instead' (overrides eventName). This adds real value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Run a funnel analysis report to track user progression through steps', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling report tools (ga_run_report, ga_run_pivot_report) by focusing on funnel analysis.

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 context is implied through the term 'funnel analysis report' but there is no explicit comparison to alternative report tools or exclusions. The description does not say when to use this instead of ga_run_report or ga_run_pivot_report.

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