get_leads_grouped_by_company

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

No annotations provided. The description reveals key behaviors: groups all deals, paginates internally with no 200 limit, and auto-fetches company names. It does not cover auth needs or rate limits, but the given information is sufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. The action, scope, and use cases are presented concisely, with the main purpose front-loaded.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the grouping logic, pagination behavior, and auto-fetching. It lacks explicit return structure details, but the hint 'top-N companies by total sum' provides fair completeness.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds aggregate context ('groups all deals by company') but does not elaborate on each parameter beyond the schema. Additional insights like 'paginates all deals server-side' add value but are not per-parameter.

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 groups all deals by company and sums them, returning top-N companies by total sum (LTV). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_leads' by specifying aggregation and server-side pagination without the 200 limit.

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?

Explicitly advises use for LTV analysis, customer rating, and finding top companies for interviews. While it doesn't list alternatives or when not to use, the context implies it's for aggregated data, setting it apart from raw list tools.

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