get_won_deals_last_month

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the computation (sum and count) but leaves the meaning of 'last month' ambiguous (e.g., calendar month vs. rolling 30 days, timezone). It does not address potential currency handling or data scoping, though the simplicity of a read-only aggregate is evident.

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, concise sentence that is immediately understandable. It front-loads the verb and resource, containing no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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, has zero parameters, and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return value structure. It covers the core purpose well. The only notable gap is the precise definition of 'last month', which would make the description fully complete. Despite this, the description is sufficient for a zero-parameter aggregate 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 tool has no parameters, so the schema is trivially covered (100%). The description adds value by specifying the output metrics (sum and count), which directly aligns with the output schema and provides semantic clarity beyond the empty parameters object.

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 specific action (get sum and count), the resource (deal amounts), and a time filter (won in the last month). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_deals or get_deal, which retrieve individual deals rather than aggregate metrics.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_deals or get_deal should be used for individual deal details, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context must be inferred from the name and description.

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