conduyt_funnel_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the accounting invariant (the five outcomes sum to entries), the median-days metric limited to settled stays, the event-sourced basis rather than current-state, and the 90-day clamp. It omits permission requirements and any note about response size or pagination, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tightly packed sentence plus a trailing endpoint reference — front-loaded with the core object and zero filler. The deep parenthetical nesting makes it harder to parse than it needs to be, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return content, and it does: per-stage entries with a five-way outcome split, median settled-stay days, and a created-in-window cohort by current status. That is enough to call the tool confidently; only auth/prerequisite context is 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%, so pipelineId, from/to, and dateRange are already documented in the schema, and the description adds little parameter-level detail beyond 'ONE pipeline' reinforcing that a single pipelineId is required. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured fields do 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?

Names a specific artifact (stage funnel report) scoped to exactly one pipeline, and spells out the two distinct outputs it contains: per-stage entry outcomes and a cohort breakdown. An agent can distinguish this from generic report runners like conduyt_run_report or conduyt_report_schedule_deliveries without reading any schema.

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 is implied by the data-source caveat ('built from recorded stage moves, never from where deals sit now') and the 90-day window clamp, which tells the agent what questions this answers. However, no sibling tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use routing versus conduyt_run_report, conduyt_dashboard, or other report tools.

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