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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explicitly stating that it returns only aggregates and never exposes identifiers, contacts, tax ids, addresses, notes, or free text. This goes beyond the annotations and is critical for privacy-aware use.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the data exclusion clause follows naturally. It is concise, structured, and fully digestible at a glance.

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 is a read-only aggregation with an output schema provided. The description covers the purpose, data scope, time constraints, and privacy exclusions. Given the annotations and schema, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter (businessId, startDate, endDate) has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds the 'at most 366 UTC days' constraint, which is not in the schema, but this is a minor addition. Overall, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond 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 states a specific verb (summarize), a clear resource (quote pipeline), and defines the scope (non-draft, counts, values, status mix, one tenant-owned business, at most 366 UTC days). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_receivables_summary or get_revenue_summary, which target different data domains.

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 when to use the tool by specifying the exact subject matter (quote pipeline for a single business) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Usage is inferred from the resource type, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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