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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the reviewRequired gating, the requirement that the user confirm retained lines are references rather than selling prices, and the security warning to treat CRM field values as untrusted data. It does not describe error behavior for inapplicable deals, but the annotation coverage lowers that burden.

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 every sentence carries information; the precondition is front-loaded. It loses a point because the first sentence is awkwardly worded and the domain terms are dense, so an agent may need to reread it.

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 simple, read-only two-parameter tool, the description provides the selection context, a downstream requirement, and an important trust warning. With no output schema, it would be more complete if it stated what the preview actually returns, but the description gives enough context for correct invocation.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not mention dealId or workspaceId explicitly. dealId is inferable from the tool name and 'For a deal', and workspaceId has a schema description, but the description itself adds no real parameter-level semantics.

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 identifies a specific resource ('legacy pricing evidence') and a specific precondition ('a deal that does not yet use versioned terms'), and the title names the action ('Preview legacy pricing adoption'). It is distinguishable from siblings such as get_deal_commercials and preview_catalogue_price, though the phrasing 'the legacy pricing evidence a save must review' is grammatically awkward and never uses an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'fetches'.

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 an explicit precondition ('For a deal that does not yet use versioned terms') and explains the downstream workflow: when reviewRequired is true, save_deal_commercials needs legacyAdoptionReviewed: true after user confirmation. It stops short of a full when-not-to-use statement or named alternatives, so it is not a 5.

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