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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint: false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: 2,000+ tracked deals, 2019-present coverage, the caveat that many private deals are undisclosed, and the explicit absence of a year parameter. This makes data-coverage limitations transparent.

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 well-structured: scope and data coverage first, then return fields, then filters, then an example query, then exclusions. Every sentence adds actionable information, and the example query is compact and illustrative without being padded.

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?

The description covers the tool's data scope, value-disclosure caveat, filter semantics, return fields, example usage, and exclusions. With an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only/idempotent safety profile, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameter meanings, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing concrete examples (e.g., min_value_usd=1000000000 for $1B+), naming typical buyer/seller filter values, and explicitly mapping deal types to acquisition/JV/refinance/recap while warning about the non-existent year parameter.

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 a specific verb (list) and resource (M&A and capital transactions in the data center sector), and enumerates the returned fields: deal name, buyer, seller, value, date, market, target operator, and type. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools hyperscaler_deals and deal_autopsy, making its scope unmistakable.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance with example queries, and explicitly says do NOT use it for hyperscaler-specific activity or single-deal post-mortems, naming the correct alternatives. It also warns that there is no `year` parameter and directs users to date_from/date_to, which prevents a common misuse.

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