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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of what comes back (parties, roles, value basis, provenance), which matters since no output schema exists. It stops short of noting behavior for an unknown or invalid deal_id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumerated field list is dense but each item carries information. Slightly list-heavy prose, 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 return-value description is essential and present, and the single-param schema is fully documented. The only real gap is operational behavior for missing/invalid ids and no routing guidance to sibling tools, both minor for a simple lookup.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including accepted id formats and where to obtain the id, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no additional meaning about deal_id, which is appropriate but earns only the baseline.

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 states a specific resource ('One deal from the Corridome register') and enumerates exactly which fields it returns (company, date, type, parties, value, filing), so an agent knows precisely what it retrieves. It implies a single-object fetch distinct from the search siblings, though it never names search_deals explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion rules, and no named alternative. The contrast with search_deals/get_firm is only inferable from the phrase 'One deal' and from the schema's mention that the id comes from search_deals or get_firm, which lives outside the description.

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