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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context: results are paginated with 20 per page, and it searches 'public' deals. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action and resources. No wasted words; every part adds value.

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 8 parameters (all documented), an output schema (so return values are covered), and annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the data source (MANDA) and pagination. Minor omission: no explicit mention of the public status of deals, but implied.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond summarizing the search dimensions (keyword, region, etc.), which is already covered by schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states it searches for public selling deals (M&A/business succession) using keyword, region, sales size, transfer amount, etc., with results limited to 20 per page. This distinguishes it from siblings: get_deal (single deal), list_areas (area filtering), and list_industries (industry filtering).

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 that this is the primary search tool for deals with various filters, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Sibling tools are clearly differentiated by their purpose, so the usage context is clear.

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