funnel_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the exact JSON return shape, that steps are ordered, conversion_rate is cumulative against the first step rather than step-to-step, and dropoff is measured against the previous step. These are non-obvious behavioral details that materially affect interpretation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides a compact inline return schema followed by the crucial semantic clarifications. Every sentence earns its place, and the inline JSON example is justified because there is no output schema.

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?

The description is nearly complete for a tool with no output schema: it documents the return shape, semantics, and prerequisite. Minor gaps remain: 'entering' and 'all_visitors' are not explicitly defined, and there is no mention of behavior for unknown funnel_id, but these do not block correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds only the sequencing hint 'Get funnel_id from list_funnels first,' which is useful but largely redundant with the funnel_id schema description. It does not add meaningful new parameter-level 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a saved conversion funnel and return its per-step result.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'NON-tabular' output and by referencing list_funnels as the source for funnel_id, making its role clear relative to list/create/update funnel tools.

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 clearly establishes the usage context: run a saved funnel, obtain funnel_id from list_funnels first. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name tabular alternatives like query_stats, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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