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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the default ordering ("most recently changed first unless `sort` says otherwise") and the cost signal ("Free."). It stops short of mentioning pagination behavior or result shape.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary filter axes, then a default-ordering clause, then a copy-pasteable example. Dense but every clause earns its place; the trailing "Free." is terse and useful.

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?

For a 12-parameter, sargable query tool with no output schema, the description covers the filter surface and default sort and gives a realistic example. Gaps remain around pagination (limit caps at 100, offset semantics) and how to retrieve a single deal, but the core calling information is present.

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 low (33%), but the description compensates well by naming nearly every filter input — pipeline, stage, status, company/contact, tag, segment, sort, and arbitrary field/custom-field filters. It also conveys the date arithmetic convention ("today-14") via a worked example. Only query, limit and offset go unaddressed.

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 states the resource (deals) and enumerates the retrieval axes — pipeline, stage, status, company/contact, filters, tag, custom field, saved segment — so an agent can tell it is a filtered deal lookup. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as crm_search or crm_get_deal, leaving the boundary implicit.

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 enumeration of filter axes and one concrete worked example ("deals not moved in 14 days"), which shows how to compose a query. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over crm_search, or when a saved segment beats raw filters.

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