calibrate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the two modes, CSV column requirements, and output effect (calibrated column in report). However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the model irreversibly) or any permission requirements, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by two bullet-like mode explanations. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately clarifies optionality.

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 conditional logic and CSV requirements, the description covers the essential usage and output effect. It does not discuss error handling or the output schema, but the latter is presumably documented elsewhere. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the conditional relationship between csv_path and campaign_name, and specifying the required CSV columns ('sent, opened, clicked, converted'), which the schema does not detail.

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 calibrates simulated funnel rates to real-world levels, and explicitly distinguishes between two modes (with and without csv_path). This specificity differentiates it from sibling tools, which are mostly about simulation and campaign management.

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 when to use each mode: with real stats (csv_path) or without (industry benchmarks). It implicitly tells the agent when to avoid the tool (no need if already calibrated) but does not explicitly mention alternatives. Since no sibling provides calibration, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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