outcome_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the metric compares approved actions against a holdout, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, how the holdout is defined, or how fresh the data is.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the metric definition, though the vague 'Per playbook' prefix is less useful than the concrete comparison that follows.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need full explanation. However, the description leaves the sole input parameter undocumented, provides no usage context, and does not clarify key behavioral aspects like data freshness or what constitutes an approved action versus a holdout.

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 only parameter, window_days, has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. Its name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about what the window controls or how the default of 30 days is used.

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 metric: the share of accounts that advanced stage with an approved action versus a holdout. This is distinguishable from sibling tools like propose_action or search_facts. However, it lacks a clear verb such as 'compute' or 'generate' and the 'Per playbook' prefix is vague jargon.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling it replaces. 'Per playbook' implies some context but does not tell the agent how to decide between this report and alternatives like list_pending_actions or get_account_context.

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