analytics_conversion_funnel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'analyze', implying read-only, but does not explicitly state read-only, required permissions, data scope, or whether results are limited to top N. The description is too sparse to disclose behavioral traits beyond the obvious.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose but omits important details. While it is not verbose, the brevity results in under-specification for a tool with 5 parameters and many siblings.

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 5 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like, how conversion is defined, or if it supports filtering. A conversion funnel tool typically needs more context (e.g., steps, attribution).

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% (all 5 parameters have descriptions), so the schema already provides parameter meanings. The description adds no additional parameter context. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it neither adds nor detracts from schema information.

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 'Analyze top converting pages and events' clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing conversions by pages and events. It uses a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('converting pages and events'), distinguishing it from siblings like analytics_top_pages (traffic) and analytics_ecommerce (revenue). However, it could be more precise about 'top converting' (e.g., ranked by conversion count).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools such as analytics_content_performance and analytics_ecommerce, the agent has no basis to choose this over others. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.

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