sf_won_revenue_by_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to state what the return format is (e.g., a list of campaign names with revenue sums), whether it includes zero-revenue campaigns, or how date filtering works. It only states the high-level purpose.

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 concise sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it could afford a bit more detail without losing conciseness.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify the grouping logic, return structure, date semantics, or any edge cases. The agent lacks essential information to invoke it 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 0% and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain that 'dateFrom'/'dateTo' filter opportunity close dates or that 'limit' controls the number of campaigns returned. This is a major gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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 ('show'), the resource ('closed-won revenue'), and the grouping ('by primary campaign'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'sf_pipeline_by_campaign' (pipeline stage) and 'sf_campaign_performance_trend' (general performance).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sf_top_campaigns' or 'sf_campaign_performance_trend'. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or 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.