Pipeline Status

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

The annotation already signals readOnlyHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by revealing that the underlying state lives across four tables and this tool joins them into one funnel view, which is not inferable from annotations alone. No contradiction.

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, no fluff: the first states the core deliverable with a concrete stage list, the second explains why the tool exists. Each sentence carries distinct informational 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?

With one required parameter fully documented, readOnlyHint provided, and an output schema present, the description supplies the remaining needed context: the funnel stages and the consolidation behavior. No critical information for calling the tool correctly appears missing.

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%, and the single parameter url_or_hash is already explained as the query's url_hash or original search URL. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so baseline 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 defines the tool as a single consolidated pipeline/funnel view for a query, with explicit stages: scraped → enriched → open → profiled → sent. It communicates the resource and scope well, though it does not explicitly differentiate from named sibling tools.

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 establishes a clear use case: answer 'where is everything?' for one query without checking multiple tables. It conveys when the tool should be used but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative.

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