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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavioral semantics: unknown/zero/estimated values are distinct, NOT_FINITE must not be treated as zero, and CRM field values are untrusted data. These warnings materially change how an agent should interpret results and are not derivable from the 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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the colon-led list packs a large amount of return-value detail into compact, readable form. The closing security warning earns its place because it affects downstream reasoning.

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 full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: covered fields, metric categories, statuses, provenance/history, and the unknown-vs-zero semantics. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The description does not add param-level detail: dealId is left to inference from the tool name and workspaceId already has a schema description. Since schema coverage is 50% and the two parameters are simple, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read a deal's commercial terms') and then enumerates the exact contents, so an agent knows precisely what this tool returns. This clearly separates it from mutation siblings such as save_deal_commercials, even without naming them.

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 phrase 'before changing them or closing it' gives an explicit, actionable context for when to call this tool. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the strongest guidance.

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