rate_advice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about whether the tool reads or mutates data, permission needs, or what the advice consists of. Only a garbled phrase is provided.

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?

It is short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient front-loading. The single fragment is not a coherent sentence and fails to state the action.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description still leaves the core action, the lead_id input, and the use case entirely unclear. For a tool with a required lead_id, this is inadequate.

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 0% and the single parameter (lead_id) is never mentioned in the description. The phrase 'Your avg won' only weakly implies per-user/per-lead data, so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 fragment 'Your avg won vs listing budget mid' hints at a comparison between average won amounts and a listing budget midpoint, but gives no clear verb or resource. It is neither a clean statement of purpose nor distinguishable from siblings like board_advice, pitch_ab_stats, or earnings_summary.

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 indication of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (board_advice, pitch_ab_stats, earnings_summary) it replaces. The agent is left to guess based on a cryptic fragment.

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