List game funnels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a good job: it reveals the default ordering, the exact return shape, the meaning of mode and scopeMode, and warns that conversion numbers are excluded. It does not cover pagination or error behavior, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 long but information-dense; it front-loads the core purpose and default ordering, then packs return-field semantics into a compact form. The detailed return structure earns its place because there is no output schema.

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 list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the return payload, field semantics, and what is intentionally absent. The only notable omissions are pagination behavior and explicit routing to the funnel-result siblings.

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 100%, so the schema already documents game, sort, and order; the baseline is 3. The description adds value by interpreting the default ordering as 'most-recently-updated first' and by tying the game parameter to the intended use case. This lifts it above 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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'List the conversion funnels defined for a game...' and includes a concrete intended question. It clearly distinguishes these funnel definitions from computed conversion numbers, which separates it from sibling tools like get_funnel_result and get_funnel_trend.

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?

It gives an explicit use case ('Use this to answer what funnels are set up for this game?') and an explicit exclusion: computed step-by-step conversions are not returned here. It does not name the alternative sibling tools directly, but the exclusion is clear enough.

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