pipeline_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool composes and computes data but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or has no side effects. The analytical nature is implied but not confirmed.

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 well-structured with a summary followed by parameter details. It is front-loaded but slightly verbose; some sentences could be merged or shortened without losing clarity.

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?

With 10 parameters, 0 required, no annotations, and an output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior, all parameters, and the composition of the output. No gaps remain.

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 description has a dedicated Args section explaining each parameter, its default, and behavior (e.g., 'ilike' filtering, timezone offset). Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates, adding meaning 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 it reports CRM pipeline health, listing specific breakdowns (totals, stalled deals, win rate, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like sales_snapshot or business_pulse by the comprehensive pipeline focus.

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 outlines what the tool does and describes optional filters (salesperson, team, company), implying when to use them. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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