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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'without writing anything' largely restates structured data. The one genuinely additive detail is the cross-tool dependency on create_workspace, which the annotations do not convey; nothing is said about how the cap or company dollar is derived or whether workspace settings drive the split.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The prerequisite is placed in a leading parenthetical, which delays the actual purpose statement slightly, but the overall length is well matched to the content.

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 usefully names the three returned figures, which is the main gap it fills. For a 10-parameter tool it still leaves open how the split is computed (cap source, referral interaction) and what happens when required inputs are incomplete, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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%, including the gci-vs-price+commission_pct alternative and the side aliases, so the schema already carries full parameter meaning. The description adds no additional semantics about how the 10 parameters interact, which is the correct baseline for a fully documented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show how a deal would split') and enumerates the outputs (agent net, company dollar, cap), which is far more informative than the name alone. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling commission_calculator, so an agent must infer the preview-vs-calculator boundary.

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 gives a hard prerequisite ('Needs the workspace_key from create_workspace') but no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance. The preview framing implies it should be run before a real deal is recorded, but that routing to record_deal or commission_calculator is left to inference.

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