get_pipeline_value

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the calculation logic, the meaning of 'open-stage', and the exact filter semantics (e.g., close_before keeps deals with close_date <= the given date). This makes the tool's behavior transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a bulleted Args list. Every sentence provides essential information, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the computation, all parameters, and filter semantics. The presence of an output schema means return-value details need not be in the description. This is fully adequate for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: viewer must be 'LEADERSHIP' or a rep_id and is required; segment is an optional filter; close_before is an optional ISO date with an exact comparison rule. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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 computes a sum of open-stage deal_value with optional filters. It uses a specific verb ('Sum') and resource ('deal_value'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_segment_attainment or get_reps_at_risk.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (computing pipeline value) and explains optional filters, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. The context is unambiguous, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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