get_pipeline_performance_report

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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the report returns, if there are rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for a reporting tool.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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?

For a reporting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'pipeline performance report' contains, how results are structured, or any behavioral considerations. Given the complexity of performance reporting and lack of structured metadata, more 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description mentions 'date range' which aligns with the parameters but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('pipeline performance report') with scope ('for a date range'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_pipelines' or 'get_pipeline_analytics' by specifying 'performance report', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like 'get_sales_report' or 'get_lead_conversion_report'.

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. With siblings like 'get_pipeline_analytics', 'get_sales_report', and 'get_lead_conversion_report', there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over other reporting tools.

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