portfolio_close_rate

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. While 'compute' suggests a read-only operation, it doesn't clarify whether this requires specific permissions, what data sources it accesses, whether it performs real-time calculations or uses cached data, or what happens when client_id is null. The description lacks essential behavioral context for a tool that presumably accesses CRM data.

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 that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it does convey, though it could benefit from additional context about parameters and usage.

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 that there's an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and poor parameter documentation, the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the tool does at a high level but lacks crucial details about parameters, behavioral characteristics, and usage context that would make it complete for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with only a parameter named 'client_id' and no documentation. The description provides no information about parameters whatsoever - it doesn't mention the client_id parameter, explain what it represents, or clarify when it should be used versus omitted. For a tool with one parameter and zero schema documentation, this is inadequate.

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 verb 'compute' and the resource 'close rate across all products', specifying it's based on CRM conversion states. It distinguishes from siblings like 'crm_state_stats' by focusing on close rate calculation rather than general state statistics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible similar tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate versus other CRM analysis tools like 'crm_state_stats' or 'compare_confirmed_vs_uninterested', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for its use.

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