crm_state_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what data is returned but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, or how the 'unique deduped' logic works. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of 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 description is extremely concise - a single sentence that states the core purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the essential information ('Return CRM state statistics') and uses the remainder to specify the aggregation method. Every word serves a purpose, making it maximally efficient.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and relatively simple parameters, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it leaves significant gaps in understanding parameter meanings and behavioral constraints. For a statistical query tool, this is minimally viable but incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions no parameters at all - not explaining what 'product_slug', 'client_id', or 'limit' mean in the context of CRM state statistics. While the output schema exists, the description fails to add any parameter context beyond what's minimally visible in the schema structure.

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 the action ('Return') and resource ('CRM state statistics'), specifying it provides 'unique deduped customer counts by conversion_state'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'crm_customers_by_state' by focusing on aggregated statistics rather than individual customer listings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all potential alternatives like 'portfolio_close_rate' or 'get_deduped_crm_by_category'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies it's for statistical aggregation, there's no mention of when to choose it over similar tools like 'crm_customers_by_state' (which might list customers) or 'portfolio_close_rate' (which might provide different metrics). The description lacks any 'when' or 'when-not' context.

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