kpi_sla_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates the tool shows progress and identifies overdue leads, and mentions reminding or marking violations, implying possible write operations. However, it does not clarify if the tool is read-only or has side effects, leaving ambiguity.

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 sentence in Vietnamese, yet it effectively communicates the tool's purpose and usage. It is concise and front-loaded without unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and its purpose is well explained. While there is no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality for its simple use case. However, a brief mention of the output format would enhance 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 description coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds context that the month parameter is for the scoring period, but does not provide additional details beyond the schema's own description.

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 the tool's function: showing scoring progress of Leads by month, identifying who has finished and who is overdue. It also specifies usage for reminding Leads before a deadline or marking violations, which distinguishes it from sibling tools focusing on other KPI aspects.

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 explicit usage contexts: reminding Leads before the deadline (with exact date and time) or marking deadline violations. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear and differentiates from other KPI tools.

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