gold_ghl_pipeline_snapshot_report

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key operational behaviors: BYOK (caller's own key), PAID ONLY $39 (cost), and 'one-call' (single invocation). The word 'report' implies a read-only operation. It doesn't cover rate limits or exact output shape, but the main behavioral constraints are surfaced.

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?

Every phrase carries information: purpose, cadence, scope, auth, and cost. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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?

Adequate for a simple optional-parameter report, but with no annotations and no output schema it leaves gaps: the return content is only implied by the report name, and the effect of omitting location_id is not stated. Complexity is low, so this is a moderate rather than severe gap.

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 only parameter, location_id, has zero schema description coverage, but the description's 'across a sub-account' tells the agent that location_id selects the sub-account scope. This is a meaningful semantic addition beyond the bare schema.

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?

Description names a specific artifact: a Monday snapshot report of pipeline open/won value per stage within a sub-account. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly actions (enroll, list, draft, apply, move) rather than reporting.

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 phrase 'One-call Monday report' gives clear usage context: generate this report on Monday via a single call. It doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but no sibling tool is a close alternative, so the missing exclusion is not a major gap.

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