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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description isn't carrying the safety burden. It still adds real value: the default sort order, pagination defaults and hard max, and the semantics of returned fields (client_name is the end client when the contact is a finder, plus lost_reason) — behavioral context the annotations cannot express.

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?

Four tight clauses, front-loaded with what the tool returns and the sort order, then filtering, then pagination, then row semantics. No filler and nothing buried.

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 characterizes the returned rows (client_name, lost_reason), and it covers filtering, sorting, and pagination constraints. Only the meaning of the two untyped ID filters is left unresolved, which is a minor gap.

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 67% and the schema already documents limit, offset, and the ISO format for created_after/before; the description largely restates these. stage_id and pipeline_id are listed but neither the schema nor the description explains what values they accept, so the description doesn't compensate for the gap.

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 concrete verb+resource ('List deals') and adds the ordering ('newest first'), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_deal or list_pipelines, but as the canonical deal-listing tool the intent 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 through the filter and pagination clauses, which tell the agent how to narrow and page results, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-an-alternative guidance and no mention of get_deal/search_contacts as differing options.

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