crm_pipeline_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states 'Live distribution' and 'Reflects outreach progress', implying a read-only query, but it does not explicitly confirm idempotency, safety, or data freshness. The behavioral traits are hinted but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences long, each sentence serving a distinct purpose: the first explains the core functionality, the second adds contextual value about the tool's insight. No word is wasted.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the main functionality but omits details about the return format (e.g., counts, proportions). It provides sufficient context for a simple aggregation tool but leaves ambiguity about output structure.

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 100% coverage with a clear description for the only parameter ('state'). The description repeats the optional scoping but adds no new semantic meaning, format guidance, or behavioral constraints 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 explicitly states the tool provides a live distribution of operators across clearly enumerated CRM stages (NEW/CONTACTED/REPLIED/DEMO/CLOSED/DEAD), with optional state scoping. This specific verb-resource combination clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_operators or market_summary.

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 implies usage for understanding outreach progress, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Some guidance is inferred from the stage list, but no direct comparison is offered.

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