kpi_member_kpi

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It clearly states the tool returns a breakdown for a quarter, which implies a read-only query. However, it does not disclose potential restrictions (e.g., whether the user must be the member, data freshness, or any side effects). Additional context about auth or data recency would improve 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?

One concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function and output components. No wasted words, and the most critical information (what the tool returns) is 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?

Given the tool outputs a detailed breakdown, the absence of an output schema is compensated by listing the exact components in the description. For a simple query tool with only two parameters, this is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes both parameters ('Member UUID' and 'Quarter'). The description adds only the default behavior for quarter ('defaults to current'), which is a minor but useful addition. No further enrichment needed.

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 states exactly what the tool returns: 'Full KPI breakdown for a member (engine1 commission, engine2 squad-bonus, clawback, total payout) for a quarter.' The verb 'Full KPI breakdown' combined with the specifics clearly distinguishes it from siblings like kpi_overview (which likely provides summary stats) and kpi_members (which likely lists members).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only explains what it does, not when to choose it over siblings like kpi_alerts, kpi_chapter, or kpi_members. Without context for decision-making, an agent may misuse it.

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