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

Even with readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: progressive disclosure, paid-key gating, default comparables count, escalation levels, and the fact that verdict text is always included. None of this contradicts the annotations.

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 dense but organized: purpose and output first, then progressive-disclosure behavior, then use-case framing and an example. It is longer than minimal, yet each clause adds meaningful information for a tool with two parameters and layered output modes.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers everything needed to select and call it correctly: what it returns, what the verdict/autopsy means, access tiers, comparables behavior, and an example. There is no missing essential context.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the cost/effort rationale ('keep the default cheap'), the escalation semantics ('escalate only for deals you're drilling into'), and by reinforcing the default limit with an example call. This is above baseline but the schema still carries much of the burden.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: it returns data-center M&A/capex deal flow with the DCPI grid-reality verdict overlaid per market. This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like list_transactions or hyperscaler_deals by adding the analytic 'what is the real play' layer.

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 clear context for when to call it ('who is actually buying data centers right now', 'what is the real play behind this deal') and includes a concrete invocation example. It does not explicitly name alternatives to prefer for neighboring questions, so it lacks the when-not-to-use component that would make it a 5.

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