get_quarter_summary

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 omits whether this is read-only (though implied by 'Get'), what specific metrics are returned, data freshness, or computational cost. 'Comprehensive' and 'key metrics' are vague descriptors that disclose little about actual behavior.

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 single-sentence structure is appropriately concise, but wastes words on vague modifiers ('comprehensive', 'key') without adding specific value. 'Current quarter context' is somewhat redundant given the 'quarter' parameter options.

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 the lack of output schema and the presence of multiple similar summary tools (activities, deals, persons), the description inadequately specifies what domains this summary covers. It mentions 'metrics' but not whether these include deals, revenue, activities, or pipeline data, leaving significant gaps 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing clear descriptions for 'quarter', 'year', and 'user_id'. The description adds no additional semantic clarity (examples, format constraints, interaction between optional params) beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('quarterly summary') and specifies it includes 'key metrics' and 'current quarter context'. However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_quarterly_progress', leaving ambiguity about when to choose this over that alternative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_quarterly_progress', 'get_deals_summary', or 'get_current_quarter_deals'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow suggestions mentioned.

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