sf_forecast_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states a read operation ('Show'), but lacks details on permissions, data freshness, aggregation logic, or any side effects. For a simple read tool, this is minimal transparency.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part is essential for understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., aggregate numbers, list items). It only describes the input, leaving the output implied. The description is adequate but not fully complete for a summary tool.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds 'closing within a date range', which ties the two parameters together but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already implies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Show'), the resource ('forecasted pipeline for open opportunities'), and the constraint ('closing within a date range'). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like sf_pipeline_summary, the specific mention of forecasted pipeline and date range provides sufficient clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or compare to sibling tools such as sf_pipeline_summary or sf_pipeline_by_campaign.

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