get_reps_at_risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core filtering logic and parameter roles, but omits important behavioral traits such as how the viewer parameter affects data scope (e.g., whether a rep_id returns only that rep's data vs a leadership view of all reps), access permissions, auth requirements, or error behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences for the main purpose, followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence provides necessary information, with no redundancy or filler.

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 modest complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential function and parameters. However, it lacks details on viewer role semantics (e.g., what data a rep_id viewer can access) and potential edge cases, leaving some contextual ambiguity for an agent deciding when and how to invoke the tool.

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. It does so effectively by defining viewer as 'LEADERSHIP' or a rep_id and threshold as a numeric cutoff in [0.0, 1.0] with a default of 0.70, adding meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 returns reps whose Q1 2026 closed-won attainment is below a threshold, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_segment_attainment and get_pipeline_value by focusing on rep-level at-risk status based on attainment.

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 implies usage context through the threshold and viewer parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides no exclusions or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the functional definition.

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