Totals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a cheap read-only aggregate and lists the metrics surfaced, but never states what happens when year or quarter is omitted (all-time vs. current period), whether the two filters interact, or what shape the response takes, which are the decisions an agent must make before calling.

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 well-formed sentence with the outcome front-loaded and the metric list scoped inside a parenthetical. No filler, though the trailing "same optional year/quarter filter" clause is a dangling back-reference that costs a little clarity.

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 simple (two optional scalar filters, no output schema), and the description does name the returned metrics, which is the main missing piece such tools usually have. What remains missing is default-scope behavior and sibling differentiation, both of which matter given quarterly_summary exists next door.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. "Optional year/quarter filter" only confirms both are optional and act as filters; it adds nothing on quarter range semantics, year formatting, or the effect of supplying one without the other.

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?

"Quick numeric totals" names the operation and the resource, and the parenthetical enumerates the specific metrics returned (donation count, bags, boxes, items, dollars, educational value). It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling quarterly_summary, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate the two from the text alone, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus quarterly_summary, list_donations, or export_csv, and no exclusion guidance. The phrase "the same optional year/quarter filter" gestures at shared context with a sibling but never says which one or what the tradeoff is, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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