mixpanel_get_funnels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further about behavior — no mention of the default 30-day window, pagination, rate limits, or the fact that a paid/authenticated Mixpanel service account is needed. It is essentially a restatement of the name.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficiently sized, though the extreme brevity means there is no structure beyond the single clause.

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?

With seven parameters, four required, and no output schema, the description should at least hint at what a funnel conversion response contains (steps, conversion rates, date-range behavior). None of that is present, and no authentication context beyond the schema's service-account fields is given, leaving a meaningful gap for a data-query tool.

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 seven parameters including the date range defaults and the funnel_id lookup hint are already documented. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which meets the baseline 3 for schema-driven documentation.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('funnel conversion data') with the vendor named, so the intent is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as mixpanel_get_events or mixpanel_get_retention, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus mixpanel_get_events, mixpanel_get_retention, or mixpanel_export_data, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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