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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: data coverage (2,100+ deals since 2019), the limitation that many private deals are undisclosed, the fields returned, and the explicit warning that there is no `year` parameter.

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 description is longer than average, but every section earns its place: scope, returns, filters, example, parameter caveat, and sibling exclusions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff, though the filter list partially duplicates the schema.

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 the tool's 10 optional parameters, existing output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete enough for correct selection and invocation. It covers return fields, data scope, limitations, example usage, filter guidance, and sibling-tool boundaries, leaving no critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds minor value by naming the most useful filters (date range, min_value_usd, region, buyer, seller) and providing an example value, but it does not significantly go beyond the 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource ('M&A and capital transactions in the data center sector') and what the tool returns (deal name, buyer, seller, value, date, market, etc.). It explicitly differentiates itself from close siblings by saying not to use it for hyperscaler-specific activity (hyperscaler_deals) or single-deal post-mortems (deal_autopsy).

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 concrete usage context: which questions it answers, which filters to apply, and even an example invocation. It explicitly states when NOT to use the tool and names the alternatives, which is strong usage guidance.

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