get_win_rate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the slicing behavior and output structure (leads, wins, closed, win %), though it omits details like read-only nature or rate limits. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently conveys the two main use cases without redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description hints at the return format (leads, wins, closed, win %). For a 4-param tool with no required parameters, this is fairly complete, though it could mention default behavior or typical usage.

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 coverage is 100% (all params described). The description adds significant value for 'dimension' by explaining the difference between 'bd' and other values. For date parameters, it adds no extra 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 calculates win rate for the BD Leads pipeline and distinguishes two modes: dimension='bd' gives overall and per-rep rates, while other dimensions slice by field. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_conversion_funnel.

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 explains the effect of different dimension values, providing clear context for when to use each. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving a minor gap.

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