conduyt_attribution_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers: it discloses that date spans clamp to 366 days and that the applied definition is returned in a `definition` field. It does not mention permission requirements or cost/performance characteristics, but for a read-only report the disclosed constraints are the ones that matter.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core definition, but the middle parenthetical about passing an `attribution` object with utm_source/utm_medium/etc. describes how contacts are written by a different operation, not anything this tool accepts — with additionalProperties:false on the schema that risks steering an agent to supply parameters this report rejects.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return contents (per-group appointments booked, deals won, revenue so far) plus the definition echo and the 366-day limit. Combined with full schema coverage of the four inputs, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 the enum descriptions already define `group` and `touch`. The description reinforces the meaning by listing the touch fields (UTM source, medium, campaign, content, term, channel, landing page, referrer) and stating the first-vs-latest semantics, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (attribution of new contacts in a window) and states exactly what is computed: contacts grouped by first/latest touch and followed through to appointments, deals won and revenue. An agent can tell this apart from conduyt_funnel_report or conduyt_appointment_report without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the content ('new contacts in the window', default last 366 days when both dates are omitted), but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over the funnel, appointment or speed-to-lead reports in the sibling list. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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