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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is free. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result — per-stage counts and monetary totals — which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences: the output shape first, the filter behavior second, the endpoint last. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

For a simple read-only aggregate with annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers what is computed and how filters affect it. It stops short of clarifying edge cases such as whether stages with zero deals appear or how multi-currency totals are handled, which an agent might reasonably want.

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 100% and there is only one optional parameter, so the schema already documents the filter object, operators and AND semantics in detail. The description only restates that filters are optional and narrow the counted deals, adding little 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?

States a specific verb and resource: totals of deal count and value grouped by pipeline stage, plus the endpoint GET /deals/summary/. It is distinguishable from list/CRUD siblings but never contrasts with cognmento_aggregate_deals, the nearest analogue, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 sentence 'Optional filters narrow the deals counted' implies the tool is for filtered rollups rather than raw listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer cogmento_aggregate_deals or cogmento_list_deal_stages instead.

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