sales_control_tower

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 it mentions this is a 'summary' tool (implying read-only), it doesn't explicitly state whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens when client_id is null. The description adds some context about being a 'first operational tool after login' but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 with two focused sentences. The first sentence explains what the tool does, and the second provides clear usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose with zero wasted content, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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), no annotations, and only 1 parameter, the description provides good context about purpose and usage. However, it could better explain parameter behavior (especially the nullable client_id) and clarify what 'summary' means operationally. For a relatively simple tool with output schema, it's mostly complete.

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. The description mentions 'for a client' which implies the client_id parameter, but doesn't explain what happens when client_id is null (the default) or whether this affects the scope of the summary. With 1 parameter at 0% coverage, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's implied.

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 tool provides a 'command-center summary for a client' covering products, campaign health, close-rate, and recommendations. It specifies the resource (client summary) and content areas, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from all sibling tools like 'portfolio_close_rate' or 'sf_health' which might overlap in some metrics.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Best first operational tool after login when the user asks for "what should we do next?"' This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives, making it easy for an agent to select appropriately.

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