conduyt_sms_drip_conversion_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains the attribution-window mechanic (next text from any drip closes the window early), the last-touch crediting model, the 90-day span clamp, and proactively discloses the single known approximation (texts from deleted drips close windows but credit no step). This is substantive behavioral context an agent could not infer.

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 the core purpose, and every clause carries information (metrics, window logic, clamp, approximation). The prose is dense and the parenthetical nesting makes it slightly hard to parse, but there is little genuine waste.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned measures (per-step and per-automation rates) and the `notes` field. For a read-only report tool this is close to complete; only the response's overall shape and cost/latency characteristics are unstated.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining what attributionDays actually governs — outcome crediting relative to the text, plus the early-window-close rule — which enriches the terse schema note. It does not map semantics to smartListId/automationId beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb+resource: per-step conversion metrics for SMS-drip automations, enumerating the exact outcomes tracked (texted, replied, booked, moved forward, won). It clearly differentiates scope from the generic delivery report by specifying 'external-workflow SMS drips' and per-step/per-automation breakdowns. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly.

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 metric definition — an agent can infer this is the tool when it wants drip-step conversion, not raw delivery. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. conduyt_sms_delivery_report for delivery stats or conduyt_attribution_report for cross-channel attribution).

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