get_lead_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' analytics, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions required, rate limits, data format returned, or whether it's a real-time or historical query. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 lack of annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'analytics' includes (e.g., metrics, timeframes, or data types), leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior and output. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, more descriptive context is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'lead_id' clearly documented as 'ID of the lead'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get analytics for a specific lead' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('analytics for a specific lead'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_lead_conversion_report' or 'get_pipeline_analytics', leaving ambiguity about what specific analytics it provides compared to alternatives.

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 such as 'get_lead_conversion_report' or 'get_pipeline_analytics'. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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