voice_of_customer_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 states the tool produces a report but doesn't describe what the report contains, how it's formatted, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any performance considerations. For a reporting tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and differentiation from siblings. The output schema mitigates some gaps by documenting return values, but the description should do more to guide usage.

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%, meaning parameter titles provide minimal context. The description doesn't explain any parameters—it doesn't mention what 'product_slug', 'client_id', 'lookback_days', etc., mean or how they affect the report. With 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving semantics unclear.

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's purpose: 'Produce a voice-of-customer report combining outcome metrics and confirmed/uninterested conversation samples.' It specifies the verb ('produce'), resource ('voice-of-customer report'), and key components (outcome metrics, conversation samples). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compare_confirmed_vs_uninterested' or 'crm_state_stats', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'compare_confirmed_vs_uninterested' that might handle similar data, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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