ghl_funnel_get_pages_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint URI and pagination behavior (limit, offset for full result sets), which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not mention any other behaviors such as rate limits, authentication, or potential errors.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It efficiently communicates the action, endpoint, and pagination note without wasted words. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanation more seamlessly.

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 absence of an output schema and only 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return values (e.g., structure of a funnel page) or provide enough detail for an agent to use the tool effectively, especially for the 4 required parameters. Annotations only cover safety, not functional completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, placing the burden on the description to explain parameters. The description only mentions pagination params (limit, offset) in passing, but fails to explain the purpose of funnelId, locationId, and name. The agent cannot infer what these parameters represent without additional context.

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 'Fetch list of funnel pages' and 'Retrieves a list of all funnel pages based on the given query parameters.' It also names the HTTP endpoint and indicates pagination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'ghl_funnel_get_pages_count_by_id' which retrieves a count, so it leaves some ambiguity about when to use each.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the count tool or other funnel tools. It mentions pagination usage but fails to give explicit context on selection or exclusion of sibling tools, making it harder for an agent to decide.

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