conduyt_agent_performance_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses target proration rules (daily once per day, weekly per 7, monthly per 30.4375), the 366-day span clamp, the max 10 userIds compare cap, and that the definition is returned as `definition`. It never states read-only/side-effect profile or permission requirements, which remains a gap.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool produces, then constraints. It is a dense single paragraph with colons/semicolons but nearly every clause carries substantive information; a slightly more structured layout would improve scanability.

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?

For a read-only report with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the returned metrics, per-rep score, team row, and `definition` field, plus window and span constraints. Permission requirements and result volume/pagination are the only notable omissions.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: userIds is the compare set (vs. default all active reps), the date pair can both be omitted for a 366-day default, and the proration math explains how targets relate to the window. This is useful semantics beyond the schema's terse 'ISO start'/'ISO end'.

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 a specific verb+resource (agent performance report) and enumerates the metrics produced plus the target-proration and per-rep scoring logic, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like conduyt_call_performance_report or conduyt_appointment_report, which also surface calls and appointments.

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?

It gives implicit invocation guidance: userIds defines the compare set, omitting it covers every active member, and omitting both dates yields the last 366 days with spans clamped to 366 days. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance relative to the other performance/report tools.

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