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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds a valuable security note about treating CRM field values as untrusted data, plus scope clarification about versioned terms. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence immediately conveys the core output, followed by scope and a security note. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 get operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential return contents, scope (any viewable deal, including versioned terms), and a critical security consideration. No missing information appears necessary for an agent to invoke the 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 50%, with workspaceId documented in the schema but dealId lacking a description. The description implies dealId identifies the deal but does not elaborate on its format or constraints. It does not compensate significantly for the undocumented parameter, though the purpose is fairly self-evident.

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 states the tool retrieves a commercial migration classification for a single deal, enumerating the components (per-fact evidence, cohort, issues, terms, report effect). It is specific about the resource and content, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_deal_commercials, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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 notes it works for any viewable deal, including versioned terms, giving some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_deal_commercials or list_commercial_review_queue, nor when not to use it. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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