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

With annotations already covering the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), the description still adds substantial behavioral context: the exact ordering (followed deals first, then flagged_identifier matches, then candidates), team scoping that turns out-of-team deals into an empty page, and pagination with an exact total. This is well beyond what the annotations provide.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, and the length is justified by the absence of an output schema, since the row structure must be described. The middle sentence is a dense enumeration of fields, which weakens readability, but no sentence is purely redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does: it enumerates each row's deal, team, party, dismissed flag, and candidate fields (node_id, label, country_iso3, identifiers with LEI first). Combined with ordering, pagination, and scoping notes, it is complete for the task.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning: 'Pass deal_id to read one deal's parties' clarifies intent, and the scoping note that a deal outside the caller's team reads as an empty page gives semantics the schema alone does not convey.

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 precisely defines the resource: the parties on the caller team's live deals that are not yet matched to a company in a register, and explicitly frames it as the worklist behind 'Match parties to a register'. This distinguishes it from siblings like deal_book or portfolio_book, which cover broader deal data. It is a noun-phrase definition rather than a verb+resource phrasing, but the scope 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?

Usage is implied: fetch unmatched parties via this queue, pass deal_id for a single deal, and note that actual matching occurs in the Stonewake dashboard. However, no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance is given against siblings like deal_book, so the agent must infer the selection boundary.

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