hcp_rep_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the scope (per-rep territory), the aggregation level, and the 30-day window for a subset of metrics. It does not disclose how optional filters affect results, what 'engaged' means, whether results are grouped or sorted, or what the output shape is.

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?

A single, compact sentence with a colon-delimited metric list. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose, and the content is front-loaded with the summary concept before the metrics.

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 metric list is useful and the tool is relatively simple, but the absence of an output schema, annotations, and any mention of filter behavior leaves gaps. Given the number of sibling tools, an agent could still be uncertain how this differs from hcp_engagement_summary or whether no parameters returns an aggregate territory rollup or a per-rep list.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not mention that region filters by territory or that rep_name is a partial match, leaving the agent to depend entirely on the schema. The description names metrics but not how the two parameters constrain or aggregate them, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 identifies the tool as a per-rep territory summary and lists the exact metrics returned: HCPs engaged, total interactions, interactions in the last 30 days, and average sentiment. Although it uses a noun phrase rather than a verb, it conveys the resource and scope well. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like hcp_engagement_summary, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for rep-level activity summaries. However, the description provides no guidance about when to choose this over hcp_engagement_summary, hcp_list_interactions, or other siblings. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions.

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