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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces 'Saves nothing' and adds non-annotation context: the conditional flag protocol for the subsequent save, that the flag requires user confirmation, and a prompt-injection warning about untrusted CRM field values. That warning is genuinely added behavioral value beyond 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?

Front-loaded with the precondition and outcome, then the conditional flag protocol, then the safety note. Efficient, though the second and third sentences are dense; acceptable given the complexity of the save-flow coupling.

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?

Covers the unusual contract (legacy-format detection, reviewRequired flag handoff, no writes) despite no output schema and 50% schema coverage. It reasonably omits return-field details because its purpose is deterministic and the key output signal (reviewRequired) is named.

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%: dealId is documented only by schema, workspaceId has a schema description. The description adds no syntax or format detail for either parameter, so it rests at the baseline for partial schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (returns saved product lines and prices), a specific resource and a precise precondition ('a deal whose pricing is still in the older format... with no saved pricing terms'). This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes itself from get_deal_commercials and save_deal_commercials.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as a pre-save check for save_deal_commercials and names the required follow-up flag (legacyAdoptionReviewed: true) only when reviewRequired is true and only after user confirmation. It clearly routes the agent between previewing and saving.

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