sf_lead_source_breakdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what is aggregated but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only guarantee, data freshness, error handling, or whether dates are required. Lacks detail on side effects or limitations.

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?

Single sentence of 10 words, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the action and key resources. Every word is necessary and sufficient for the core purpose.

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 simple aggregation with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the what but not the shape of results or behavior when parameters are omitted. However, given the low complexity and rich schema coverage, it is minimally adequate.

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 described as 'ISO date YYYY-MM-DD'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify if dates are required or optional, but the schema shows zero required parameters.

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 it aggregates lead volume, conversion rate, and opportunity revenue by lead source. It uses a specific verb ('aggregate') and resource ('lead volume, conversion rate, and opportunity revenue by lead source'), distinguishing it from similar siblings like sf_pipeline_by_lead_source which focuses on pipeline rather than conversion rate and volume.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sf_lead_conversion_metrics or sf_pipeline_by_lead_source. Sibling list includes many similar aggregation tools, but the description does not help the agent decide which to invoke.

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