ga4_step_conversion

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 non-sequential counting semantics and the resulting caveat that a user can appear at a later step without having completed earlier ones. It also lists prerequisites (Analytics Data API enabled on the quota project, Viewer role on the GA4 property) and states that access failures return a self-explanatory error. Return shape beyond the metric list (ordering, formatting) is not described.

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 core computation and the key caveat are front-loaded in the first sentence, and every clause carries information. It is dense, run-on, and contains a mixed-language fragment ('Lector (Viewer) en la propiedad de GA4'), which slightly hurts scanability, but there is no filler.

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 multi-step analytical report with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the methodology, the output fields that will be produced, prerequisite access setup, and a pointer to the diagnostics tool. Missing are output shape details (row ordering, date granularity, pagination) for a non-trivial report result.

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 five parameters are already documented in the schema, including 'Event names in funnel order' and 'Dimension to split by, e.g. "platform"'. The description restates the same meaning (steps in order, optional split) without adding format or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the resource (a funnel report) and its exact computation method: unique users per event, non-sequential, with users, share of first step and share kept from the previous step, optionally split by a dimension. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling ga4_funnel ('reliable where ga4_funnel's alpha counts are not'), so an agent can distinguish the two. The only shortfall is that the verb ('build/report') is implied rather than stated.

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 a clear selection rule against the closest alternative ('reliable where ga4_funnel's alpha counts are not') and defers access diagnostics to ga4_check_access ('checks everything at once'). It does not spell out a positive trigger case or constraints like step-count limits, but the sibling routing is explicit rather than inferred.

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