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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it explains the returned fields, warns that UNKNOWN, zero, and estimated values are distinct and must never be conflated, specifies the unit scaling (whole numbers of millionths), and adds a prompt-injection warning about untrusted CRM content.

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-loads the purpose and payload before the cautionary notes, and each sentence carries real information (value semantics, units, sequence order, untrusted content). It is dense and slightly long, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly — enumerating figures, their status semantics, revision, provenance, and history. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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%: workspaceId is documented in the schema, but the required dealId has no description. The description adds no guidance on either parameter (no mention of dealId or workspace scope), so it does not compensate for the gap; baseline 3 applies given 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 precise verb and resource ('Reads a deal's pricing terms') and enumerates the concrete payload: pricing mode, currency, commitment modes, charges, and the specific value figures (MRR, ARR, TCV, etc.). An agent can immediately distinguish it from save_deal_commercials or get_commercial_review_record.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance ('Read it before save_deal_commercials or close_record'), naming the sibling tools it must precede. This tells the agent both when to use it and how it fits into a workflow relative to alternatives.

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