fcrm automation report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the auth capability required (fcrm_read_funnels or fcrm_write_funnels) and that it is enforced by FunnelPolicy::verifyRequest(), which tells the agent a request may be rejected on capability grounds.

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?

Purpose and return shape are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is efficient. The trailing policy boilerplate ('_Enforced by FunnelPolicy::verifyRequest(), the policy default for this route group._') is mildly noisy but short.

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 2-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return nature, and the authorization gate. It omits how the funnel ID is obtained and how it relates to the other stats/report tools, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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%, including a precise note that 'account' is a configured private account profile label, not a tenant/provider ID. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve statistical reporting data for a specific automation funnel', and adds what the payload is ('aggregated stats generated by the Reporting service'). It does not differentiate from sibling reporting tools like fcrm_campaign_stats or fcrm_dashboard_stats, so an agent cannot tell which stats endpoint to pick without inspecting schemas.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling analytics tools. The 'Required capability' note is an authorization prerequisite, not usage guidance about choosing this tool over alternatives.

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