get_loss_reasons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says what the tool returns, with no mention of side effects, permissions, or safety. This is insufficient for agent decision-making. Score 2 indicates minimal transparency.

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 a single, concise phrase. For a tool with no parameters, this is appropriate and front-loaded. No wasted words. Score 5.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context (e.g., read-only, scoping). It only states the output topic, which is incomplete for safe and effective use. Score 2.

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 input schema has no parameters and 100% coverage, so the description's role is to add meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies that the tool returns loss reasons for lost deals, which adds semantic context. Score 4 because it adds value, though minimal.

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 'Reasons for rejection on lost deals' clearly indicates the tool returns loss reasons for lost deals. The tool name starts with 'get_', so the purpose is clear. It distinguishes from sibling get_* tools which retrieve other entities. A score of 4 because it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' but is still clear.

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 provides no usage guidelines, such as when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It only states what it returns, so guidance is minimal. Score 2 because context is implied by the name but no explicit directions.

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