qobrix_rep_scorecard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool aggregates (counts per resource, sums from closed contracts), how it buckets data (by assigned_to across every resource), and that it returns a wide row or leaderboard. It does not mention potential performance implications or exact return field list, but it gives a solid behavioral overview beyond what the name alone conveys.

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 compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the purpose, then summarizes the return type and aggregation logic, and ends with three illustrative examples that clarify parameter usage. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes the tool's behavior easy to grasp quickly.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what is returned (wide row or leaderboard, counts and sums). It stops short of explaining field names in the output or edge cases like combining multiple time windows (year vs from/to), but it is sufficiently complete for most agent decision-making.

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 schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context: default leaderboard size, interaction between 'user' and 'top'/'sort_by', support for 'CURRENT_USER', and the meaning of 'since_days' as a rolling window. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent construct correct call parameters.

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 this is a 'per-rep productivity roll-up' that returns either a single-user wide row or a top-N leaderboard. It specifies exactly which resources are counted (calls, meetings, emails, tasks, viewings, opportunities, deals closed) and which metrics are summed (volume, commission). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/search/get tools, which operate on individual resources.

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 explains the two modes (single-user via 'user' vs leaderboard by default) and provides concrete example parameter combinations for common use cases. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools, but the examples and mode explanations effectively imply the appropriate usage context.

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