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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states it 'creates' a funnel, implying a write/mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it overwrites existing funnels), error handling, or response format. The requirement for 'at least 2 steps' is noted, but other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs are missing.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds essential constraints (minimum steps and step types). It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently structured without redundancy.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate for a creation tool but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and step requirements but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what happens on success/failure) and doesn't explain return values, making it minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.

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%, providing baseline documentation for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'at least 2 steps' (implied in schema's 'min 2' for steps) and step types ('pageview or custom event'), but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or usage examples, staying at the baseline.

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 verb ('create') and resource ('conversion funnel') with specific functionality ('track user journey through multiple steps'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'savri_list_funnels' (list vs create) and 'savri_delete_funnel' (delete vs create), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for tracking user journeys with funnels but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'savri_create_goal' or 'savri_create_property'. It mentions the requirement of 'at least 2 steps', which is a prerequisite but not contextual guidance for tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a new goal (implying a write operation) but doesn't mention permissions needed, rate limits, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by explanatory sentences about goal types. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on permissions, error handling, return values, and how it differs from sibling creation tools, making it inadequate for safe and informed use by an AI 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds minimal value by clarifying that pageview goals track URLs and event goals track custom events, which loosely relates to event_type, match_path, and match_event but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details 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 tool creates a new conversion goal and distinguishes between two types (pageview vs. event goals), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like savri_create_funnel or savri_create_property, which likely create different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like savri_create_funnel or savri_create_property, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only explains what the two goal types track, which is more about functionality than usage context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a creation/mutation operation ('Register a new event property'), which implies write permissions are needed. It also specifies naming constraints ('Names must be lowercase...'), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if a property already exists.

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 perfectly sized with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical constraints. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the purpose, prerequisites, and naming constraints well, but doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or permission requirements. Given the complexity of a creation operation, more behavioral transparency would be beneficial.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds some value by explaining the purpose of property registration and providing naming constraints, but it doesn't add specific semantic details about the parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify the relationship between site_id and property registration).

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 specific action ('Register a new event property for tracking') and resource ('event property'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'savri_list_properties' (which lists properties) and 'savri_delete_property' (which removes them). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Properties must be registered before they can be included in events'), establishing a prerequisite relationship. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., when to use 'savri_list_properties' instead).

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a funnel and all its steps, implying a destructive, irreversible operation, but lacks details on permissions required, confirmation prompts, error handling, or rate limits, which are critical for a deletion tool.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a deletion operation, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 tool's destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation, error messages), dependencies, or safety warnings, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (site_id and funnel_id) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how to obtain these IDs or their relationships, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a conversion funnel and all its steps'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like savri_list_funnels or savri_get_funnel_stats. It precisely conveys the tool's function without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a funnel_id from savri_list_funnels), exclusions, or comparisons with other deletion tools like savri_delete_goal or savri_delete_property, leaving usage context unclear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive behavior ('will also remove all conversion data for this goal'), which is crucial for a deletion tool. However, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, error conditions, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and immediately follow with a critical consequence. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the core action and data removal but omits details like confirmation needs, error handling, or return values, which are important for safe usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or interdependencies, but it doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 ('Delete a conversion goal') and specifies the resource ('conversion goal'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like savri_delete_funnel and savri_delete_property by focusing on goals specifically. It goes beyond the title by adding the consequence of removing conversion data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like savri_list_goals or savri_create_goal, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks context for decision-making in a workflow with multiple goal-related tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive consequence ('remove all stored values'), which is valuable, but doesn't mention permissions needed, irreversibility, side effects on related data, or error conditions. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first states the action, the second clarifies the consequence. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and appropriately sized without redundant information.

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 this is a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should address permissions, confirmation needs, or what happens to associated data beyond values. The sibling tools include list_properties, but no guidance on verification before deletion is provided.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (site_id and name). The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Delete an event property') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it removes property values, unlike list or get tools. It uses precise verb+resource terminology that differentiates from creation/deletion of other entities like funnels or goals.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings include list_properties and create_property, the description doesn't mention prerequisites, confirmations, or when deletion is appropriate versus modification. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves geographic distribution but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), potential rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the tool's focus on visitor countries but lacks details on output format (e.g., list of countries with counts), behavioral traits, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more context would improve completeness for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'site_id', 'period' (including enum values and default), and 'limit' (with default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'limit' affects ranking or what 'geographic distribution' entails. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get geographic distribution of your visitors' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'geographic distribution of visitors', which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'savri_get_pages' or 'savri_get_referrers' by focusing on country-level data, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools for comparison.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'savri_get_stats' (which might include broader metrics) or specify scenarios where country data is preferred over other analytics. Usage is implied by the title and description but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return data ('session counts, drop-off rates, and overall conversion') but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second sentence efficiently describes the return values. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. Without annotations or output schema, more detail about the return format or operational constraints would improve completeness.

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 the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides about 'funnel_id' or 'period'. It implies these parameters are used to fetch funnel statistics but offers no additional context about parameter usage or constraints.

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: 'Get conversion statistics for a funnel, showing how users progress through each step.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('funnel'), and what information is retrieved ('conversion statistics'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from the sibling 'savri_get_stats' tool, which might be a more general statistics tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'savri_get_stats' or 'savri_list_funnels', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an existing funnel ID. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get the most visited pages' but doesn't cover aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of pages with visit counts). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with analytics data.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool has 3 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the core purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., output format, safety profile) that would be helpful for an agent. For a read operation with analytics data, more context on what 'most visited pages' entails would improve completeness.

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 doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents site_id, period with enum values and default, and limit with default. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'most visited pages on a website', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like savri_get_stats or savri_get_referrers, which also retrieve analytics data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like savri_get_stats (which might provide broader stats) or savri_get_referrers (which focuses on referrer data), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does without mentioning permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or response format. For a read operation with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations, making it inadequate for full agent understanding despite the concise purpose statement.

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 no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3, as the schema already documents site_id, period, and limit with defaults and enums. The description doesn't compensate with additional context.

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 as 'Get traffic sources - where your visitors are coming from,' which specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'traffic sources.' It distinguishes from siblings like savri_get_countries or savri_get_pages by focusing on referrers, but doesn't explicitly differentiate beyond the name. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as how it relates to other 'get' tools like savri_get_stats or savri_get_funnel_stats. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what metrics are returned and the compare parameter effect. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'Get'). The description is functional but lacks operational context.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey core functionality and key parameter usage. The first sentence establishes purpose and return values, the second explains the compare parameter. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded with essential information.

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?

For a 3-parameter read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does but lacks completeness. It doesn't describe the return format structure, pagination, error handling, or authentication needs. The description is functional but leaves operational gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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 the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the compare parameter ('to see changes vs previous period'), but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'visitor statistics for a website', specifying the exact metrics returned (visitors, pageviews, sessions, bounce rate, daily breakdown). It distinguishes from siblings like savri_get_funnel_stats (funnel-specific) and savri_get_pages/referrers/countries (different data types).

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 provides clear context for when to use the 'compare' parameter, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like savri_get_funnel_stats or savri_get_pages. It mentions the default period but doesn't provide guidance on period selection or prerequisites beyond site_id requirement.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'List,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify details like pagination, sorting, error handling, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of funnels with their properties) or any behavioral traits like rate limits or error conditions. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'site_id' parameter documented as 'Site ID.' The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a 'Site ID' is or how to obtain it. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('conversion funnels for a website'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'savri_list_goals' or 'savri_list_properties', which also list resources for a website, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'savri_get_funnel_stats' for detailed funnel statistics or 'savri_list_sites' for listing sites. It mentions the resource but offers no context or exclusions for usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists goals and completion counts, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp quickly.

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 tool's complexity (listing goals with counts), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure), behavioral traits, or usage context, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to use it effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('site_id' and 'period' with enum values and default). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what a 'site_id' represents or how the 'period' affects results. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List') and resource ('conversion goals and their completion counts for a website'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'savri_list_funnels' or 'savri_list_properties', which also list resources but for different entities, so it lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'savri_get_stats' or 'savri_list_funnels' that might offer related data, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied at best.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that properties must be registered first, which adds some behavioral context about prerequisites. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output format looks like (no output schema exists).

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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence earns its place by stating the action and providing important context about registration requirements, with zero wasted words.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a simple single-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about behavioral traits (e.g., read-only status, auth needs), output format, error handling, or how it differs from similar list tools. The registration prerequisite is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 the schema already documents the single 'site_id' parameter. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining what a 'site_id' represents or format examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 ('List registered event properties') and the resource ('for a website'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'savri_list_funnels' or 'savri_list_goals' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 implies usage context by stating 'Properties must be registered before they can be tracked in events,' suggesting this tool is for viewing existing properties. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'savri_create_property' or 'savri_delete_property,' nor does it mention prerequisites beyond registration.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the optional 'include_stats' parameter but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a specific usage tip. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format or operational constraints. It covers the basic purpose and parameter usage but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations and output 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?

The description adds meaning by explaining that 'include_stats=true' provides 'visitor/pageview counts for the last 30 days', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's 'Include 30-day stats summary'. With 100% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this meets the baseline of 3, as the schema already documents the parameter well.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('websites you have access to in Savri'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'savri_get_stats' or 'savri_get_pages' by focusing on websites rather than specific metrics or pages, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 implies usage by specifying when to set 'include_stats=true' for visitor/pageview counts, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'savri_get_stats' or 'savri_list_properties'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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