Pipeline summary

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what is computed, including the stale-deal rule tied to inactivity, but says nothing about cost, freshness, or scope limits of the aggregation.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the primary metrics and appends the stale-deal qualifier. It wastes no words, though it reads as a fragment without a clear verb.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the job of naming the returned metrics, which is helpful. However, it leaves as_of undefined and gives no sense of how the metrics are scoped (all deals? filtered by owner?), leaving gaps for a zero-required-parameter aggregation 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 0%: neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'no activity in N days' gives real meaning to stale_after_days, but the as_of parameter — a date the agent must format as YYYY-MM-DD — is entirely unexplained, so compensation is only partial.

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 names the resource (deals/pipeline) and enumerates the specific outputs — stage breakdown, weighted forecast, win rate, overdue follow-ups, stale deals — which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_deals. The verb is implicit ('summary'), but the aggregate nature is unambiguous.

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 summary versus list_deals or list_follow_ups, nor any mention of prerequisites. The reporting intent is inferable from the enumerated metrics, but the agent is left to guess the trigger conditions.

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