Sales Pipeline by BRM

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: BRMs with no logged activity are shown as zeros rather than omitted, and the output includes a comparison against a daily target of 26. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not cover every edge case (e.g., timezone handling).

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 well-organized with clear sections (main purpose, arguments, return structure, examples, error handling). It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 read-only aggregation tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers purpose, parameters, return format (with a detailed example structure), usage examples, and error handling. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent an AI agent from using it correctly.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters with types, defaults, and descriptions, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description repeats the parameter basics but adds concrete examples (e.g., since='2026-08-03' for 'Activity this week'), which is helpful but not a significant addition 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 clearly states the tool's specific function: rolling up sales performance per Business Relationship Manager, including metrics like inherited book size, agencies signed, and logged activity. It also lists the questions it answers, distinguishing it from broader tools like the dashboard or query.

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?

It provides example use cases (e.g., 'How's the pipeline?', 'Activity this week') and implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear, but there are no exclusion statements.

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