sf_lead_conversion_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only states the operation ('Show'). It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, what data freshness is, or if it aggregates historical data. The description is minimal and lacks depth.

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 sentence of 8 words, containing no redundancy or unnecessary information. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action and grouping dimensions.

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 low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks details on the return format, date range semantics (e.g., inclusive/exclusive), and whether conversion rates are calculated per lead or per campaign. With no annotations or output schema, more contextual details would aid the agent.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'groupBy' parameter options ('lead source or campaign') but does not describe 'dateFrom' or 'dateTo'. This partial coverage (2 of 3 parameters) adds some semantic value but leaves gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('lead conversion rates') with clear grouping dimensions ('by lead source or campaign'). It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'sf_lead_source_breakdown' which likely show counts, not conversion rates.

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 implies the tool is for viewing conversion rates aggregated by source or campaign, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over similar tools (e.g., 'sf_pipeline_by_lead_source') or when not to use it. No prerequisites or alternative tools are mentioned.

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