sf_mql_trend

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and grouping, but does not mention read-only nature, error states, or data limitations (e.g., handling of missing dates, default behavior). This is minimal disclosure for a query 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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is necessary; no redundancy.

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 output schema and annotations, and 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, volume calculation, or date range handling, leaving significant ambiguity for an AI 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description adds some meaning for 'statusValue' (MQL or any lead status) and 'groupBy' (week/month), but does not explain 'dateFrom' and 'dateTo', leaving those parameters unclear.

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 verb ('Show'), resource ('MQL or any lead status volume trend'), and time grouping ('over time grouped by week or month'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'sf_campaign_performance_trend' which focuses on campaigns.

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 usage for trend analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks guidance on when not to use it.

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