get_store_funnel

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for what it adds: the data originates from App Store Connect, breakdowns are only present 'when Apple provides them' (i.e., output is conditionally sparse), and connected=false signals an unconnected integration. It does not mention rate limits or freshness/latency beyond 'today's point'.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the funnel pipeline before the caveats. The traffic-source/custom-product-page clause and the connected=false note are compressed but each carries distinct information. Slightly dense, but nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape, which it does: the stage-by-stage funnel, today's point, day-by-day history, and optional breakdowns. That is sufficient for an agent to know what a call yields. The only gap is that no alternative tool is offered for Play-side data.

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% — both days (window 1–365, default 90) and appId (from list_apps) are already documented in the schema. The description hints at a time dimension ('today's point plus the day-by-day history') but adds no syntax or constraint beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 exact resource (App Store conversion funnel for one app from App Store Connect analytics) and the precise pipeline it reports: impressions → product page views → downloads. It also distinguishes itself from the surrounding tools by stating Google Play has no equivalent here, so an agent can tell why get_store_funnel exists alongside get_revenue or get_usage.

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 clear context (App Store Connect analytics only, one app) and an implicit when-not via 'Google Play has no equivalent here'. It also tells the agent how to interpret the connected=false signal, which is a real precondition. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use for Play data, so no explicit routing to a sibling.

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