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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read (readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), so the baseline is lower. The description adds genuine extra context: what each returned item contains, that resolution happens through save_deal_commercials rather than an approve call, and a security caveat that CRM values are untrusted data. It does not contradict 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 and default scope are front-loaded, followed by scope semantics, the resolution path, and a final security note; each paragraph carries distinct information. It is denser and longer than minimal, but no sentence is pure 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what each queue item exposes (original values, review cohort, problems found, prospective pricing terms, reporting impact) and covers resolution and pagination. The main omissions are the limit parameter's bounds and permission prerequisites for multi-workspace connections beyond the schema note.

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 description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the highest-value parameter: it defines HELD (default) and UNVERSIONED concretely, and explains cursor continuation. It leaves limit (default 20, max 50) undocumented and calls the cursor parameter 'nextCursor' while the schema names it 'cursor', a minor naming drift.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource ('Lists deals... whose older-format pricing needs a person's review') and immediately differentiates the two scopes (HELD vs UNVERSIONED). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to save_deal_commercials for resolution and noting there is no separate approve action, so an agent can select it against get_deal_commercials or get_commercial_review_record without opening schemas.

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?

It states exactly when each scope applies (HELD is the default, UNVERSIONED returns every deal still in the older format), names the alternative tool for resolving a deal, and clarifies the workflow ('there is no separate approve action'). Pagination continuation via nextCursor is also spelled out, leaving little to inference.

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