deals_get_archived_deals_timeline

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

No annotations exist, so description must cover behavioral traits. It explains the function (returns grouped archived deals) but does not mention safety, side effects, or prerequisites. It implies a read operation, but lacks explicit disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and uses bullet points for workflow tips and examples. However, some bullet points are redundant (e.g., 'Analyze historical deal patterns' and 'Useful for understanding past performance trends'), making it slightly verbose.

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 and 9 parameters, the description provides enough context through examples and tips to understand how to use the tool. It covers common use cases but does not explain response structure, which is acceptable since no output schema exists.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples that illustrate parameter combinations but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. The mention of 'same parameters as deals/get_deals_timeline' provides some additional context.

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 it retrieves archived deals grouped by time intervals, with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'archived deals timeline'. It distinguishes from siblings like deals_list_archived and mentions deals_get_deals_timeline, which provides differentiation.

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?

Workflow tips and common use cases with example JSON provide context for when to use this tool (historical analysis, seasonal patterns). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but the examples guide appropriate usage.

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