generate_business_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches multiple data sources (read operations) to produce a report, but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or potential performance implications. The behavior is fairly transparent but lacks detail on output handling or error states.

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 two sentences: first states the core purpose, second details the data sources. No extraneous information, front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and inputs. It lacks details on output format, error handling, or prerequisites, but overall is sufficiently complete for a straightforward report generator.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds context about overall data fetching but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per calibration, baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 generates a markdown business case report for an opportunity and lists the specific data sources (opportunity details, contacts, conversation insights, similar won deals). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_opportunity_details' (only details) or 'find_similar_opportunities' (only similar deals).

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 use when a complete business case report is needed but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'analyze', 'enrich_opportunity'). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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