pipeline_summary

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the computation's outputs and does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether arguments are ignored, what 'open pipeline total' precisely means, or any permission requirements. 'Aggregate' implies no mutation, but this is not explicit.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the trailing 'Arguments: {}' is filler that merely restates schema information and does not earn its place, making the definition slightly less disciplined.

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 description is minimally adequate for a no-parameter aggregation tool: it names the aggregations and an output schema exists. But it leaves ambiguities around the definition of 'open pipeline total,' whether any arguments can filter or scope the results, and the tool's read-only nature, so an agent gets only partial context.

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 schema has one generic 'arguments' wrapper with 0% description coverage, and the description adds only 'Arguments: {}'. This is redundant with the schema's default null and does not clarify whether arbitrary properties are accepted, ignored, or forbidden, so it does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action (aggregate), a clear resource (deals), and the computed outputs (deal count, BRL total per stage, open pipeline total). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_deals and get_deal, which operate on individual deal records rather than roll-ups.

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 given about when to use this tool versus list_deals, get_deal, or update_deal_stage. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer when a summary is preferable to detailed listing.

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