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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the response is enriched with related entities (company, stage, contacts, history) — valuable for deciding whether to call it. However it says nothing about permissions, what happens if the deal is missing or not in the given project, or whether history is truncated or paginated.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every clause names a concrete returned relation.

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?

No output schema exists, so the enumeration of returned relations is genuinely useful, but for a read tool with zero annotations and an undescribed required parameter, more is needed — at minimum how project_id/project_slug modify the lookup and how a not-found deal is reported.

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 mentions no parameters at all. The required deal_id has no schema description either, and project_id/project_slug are documented only in the schema (67% coverage). Since the single mandatory parameter is undocumented everywhere, the description fails to compensate for the gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get a deal') plus an explicit enumeration of what is included (company, stage, contacts, stage/amount history), which distinguishes it from a bare list_deals or get_deal_pipeline fetch. It stops short of naming a sibling it is not, so it is not a full 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this fetches a single existing deal by ID, contrasted with list_deals or create_deal/update_deal from the name alone. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_deals, no prerequisites, and no note about project scoping.

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