demo_report_datapack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It declares the tool is READ-ONLY and deterministic, describes the paginated sweep and enrichment process, and explicitly mentions that returned fields like 'complete' and 'warnings' make partial pulls explicit. It does not describe rate limits or auth, but the behavioral context is sufficiently disclosed.

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 a clear introductory sentence explaining the purpose and process, followed by bullet-point parameter descriptions. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (multiple data sources, enrichment, pagination), an output schema exists (context signal), so the description doesn't need to detail return values fully. However, it still summarizes the returned JSON structure. The three parameters are thoroughly explained, making the definition complete for 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 0%, requiring the description to fully explain parameters. It does so: week_ending is 'Anchor date YYYY-MM-DD; the target week is the most recent completed Mon–Sun on/before it (default: today)', weeks_back is 'Completed weeks back to target (default: 1 = last week)', max_contacts_per_deal is 'Cap on contacts enriched per deal (default: 3)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool is a 'Complete, deterministic data pack for the weekly inbound demo report (READ-ONLY)' and details exactly what it does: computing target week, running sweep, fetching deals, enriching them, and returning a JSON object. It distinguishes itself from siblings like demo_report_month_rollup and demo_report_save_week by being the comprehensive data pack.

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 says 'The LLM's only remaining job is classification judgment + narrative,' implying it should be used before classification. It also mentions it replaces the hand-orchestrated demo skill. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the context of siblings gives some guidance.

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