get_funnel_data

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 data ('Get'), implying a read operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure). For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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: 'Get funnel analysis showing progression through conversion stages.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity of a funnel analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, data format, or how the analysis is presented, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively. The description alone fails to provide sufficient context for proper tool invocation and result interpretation.

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, providing details for all three parameters (account_id, date_range, report_type). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the meaning of 'funnel analysis' in relation to these inputs. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 funnel analysis showing progression through conversion stages.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'funnel analysis' with the scope of 'progression through conversion stages.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_conversions' or 'get_microconversions,' which might also relate to conversion data, 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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_conversions' or 'get_traffic_data,' leaving the agent without context for tool selection. This is a significant gap in usage instructions.

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