Pipeline analytics

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

Despite annotations indicating read-only and open-world behavior, the description adds significant context: it reveals a fallback to paginated lead list aggregation, the fact that only open leads are considered, and that results are grouped by status/owner. This discloses external API calls and potential pagination behavior beyond the annotations.

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 entire description is a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core purpose and includes fallback behavior without wasted words, making it easy to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description gives a reasonable indication of the return shape ('aggregates open leads by status/owner'). It explains the fallback and scoping to open leads. However, it does not describe the exact structure of the native analytics response or potential limitations, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context that aggregation is by status/owner and uses pagination, but it does not add specific parameter-level meaning beyond what schema descriptions already provide (e.g., date formats, max_pages default).

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 a specific action ('aggregates open leads by status/owner') and resource ('pipeline analytics'), with a clear fallback mechanism. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kommo_pipelines_list or kommo_leads_list by focusing on analytics rather than raw data.

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 pipeline analytics and describes a fallback path ('Native pipeline analytics if available'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as kommo_sales_report or kommo_leads_summary. No exclusions are mentioned.

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