splithub_analytics_funnel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the load and does well: it discloses the return shape (steps[] with visitors, conversion, dropoff), what 'by' does (splits by a visit dimension), and the non-obvious retention caveat that days older than 90 count nothing. Missing only operational details like auth or limits, and no explicit statement that this is read-only.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, then progressively tighter syntax notes and caveats; no filler sentences. It is telegraphic and dense, which costs a little readability, but each clause carries information.

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 10-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers the tricky parameters (steps/funnel/within/by) and even describes the response structure. Date-range parameters, filters, and segment are left to the thin schema, so it is not fully complete.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains step syntax and the 2–8 bound, the page:/blog/* pattern, the funnel alternative, the within semantics and what 'from the first step' means, plus 'by' and rolledUp. It says nothing about from/to/days interplay or filters/segment semantics, leaving real gaps.

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?

States a specific analytical object (ordered-step funnel over visitors) for a named resource (an analytics property), and implicitly distinguishes it from sibling path/retention tools by describing 'reached each step in order' rather than free navigation. An agent can tell it apart from splithub_analytics_paths and splithub_analytics_funnels from the text alone.

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?

Gives explicit routing: supply inline 'steps' OR a saved 'funnel' (pointing at splithub_analytics_funnels), and states the default for 'within' (visit). It also warns off the wrong use case ('never call a winner from it'). It doesn't contrast against splithub_analytics_paths/retention, so not a full 5.

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