Pipeline commercial sur une période

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

The description reveals a critical behavioral trait: it returns a runbook text that the model must then execute by calling referenced Boond tools, rather than returning the analysis directly. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent) and is essential for correct usage. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, context/usage, and output behavior. It is concise, front-loaded, and avoids redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 complexity as a workflow meta-tool, the description adequately explains the output (runbook) and what to do with it (execute referenced Boond tools). It lacks details about the runbook's structure or error handling, but this is not critical for an agent to use it correctly. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by the explicit description of the return type.

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% (all parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning 'closing prévu dans la période donnée', which links the date parameters to the analysis scope, but it doesn't elaborate on parameter formats or behaviors beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool analyzes commercial opportunities with closing in a given period, breaking down by state, weighted revenue, and top opportunities. It also distinguishes itself as a workflow equivalent to an MCP prompt, which sets it apart from sibling tools.

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 explicitly says this tool is useful for clients that don't handle MCP prompts correctly (e.g., claude.ai), which gives clear context on when to use it. It also explains the output is a runbook to execute, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use other tools or provide alternative comparisons beyond the MCP prompt context.

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