List funnel pages

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no pagination behavior, no mention of what happens for an invalid funnel, no return shape. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also contributes nothing beyond them.

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?

A single eight-word sentence with no fluff or repetition; it is both appropriately sized and front-loaded. It is borderline under-specified, which caps the score slightly below a perfect 5.

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 simple list tool this is workable, but the description is essentially the title restated. It omits how to obtain the required funnelId, how pagination behaves, and what the response contains — and with no output schema, those gaps are not covered elsewhere.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 40%, the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters, but it says nothing about funnelId, name, limit, or offset. The schema's defaults and bounds partly self-document limit/offset pagination, and funnelId's role is inferable from the tool name, so the gap is not catastrophic — but the description adds zero parametric meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('pages within a funnel'), making the operation unambiguous. It naturally differentiates from the closest sibling ghl_list_funnels, which targets funnels as top-level entities, though it never explicitly names that distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention that the funnel must exist first, and no hint that funnelId is likely obtained from ghl_list_funnels. The use case is only implied by the tool's name and title, not explained.

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