get_segment_attainment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It provides useful behavioral details such as allowed values for segment and viewer, and marks viewer as 'Required.' However, it does not disclose error handling, authorization implications of the viewer parameter, or explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, leaving some ambiguity.

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 and well-structured. The main purpose is front-loaded in a single line, followed by a clean arguments block. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or wasted words.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description provides the time period, allowed segment values, and viewer types, which covers the essential context for a simple two-parameter tool. However, it leaves the purpose of the viewer parameter slightly ambiguous (e.g., whether it is for permission filtering or data scoping), which could be clearer.

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 fully compensates. It explains both parameters: segment (one of three named values) and viewer (either 'LEADERSHIP' or a rep_id like 'REP-02,' required). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare string types in the schema.

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 function: 'Q1 2026 closed-won attainment vs. quota for one segment.' This is a specific verb-resource combination with scope (one segment) and time period, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on reps at risk, pipeline value, deal reasons, and supported questions.

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 by stating 'for one segment,' which suggests using this tool when segment-level attainment data is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent would understand its purpose relative to sibling tools, which have different focuses.

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