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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond that: the ownership restriction ("owned" deal request – you cannot fetch others') and that the source media kit is included only "when recorded", i.e. conditionally present.

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 the resource, scope and conditional include all packed in. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, scope and the notable conditional field. An agent has everything needed to call 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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents its format (24-char pattern) and its provenance (from deal_request_list). The description reinforces the ID-based lookup and adds the ownership scoping constraint, which is meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific verb (Get) and resource (one owned deal request) with the ID-based single-item scope, which distinguishes it from the sibling deal_request_list. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, but the singular/ID framing makes the distinction clear.

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?

"by ID" and the schema note that the ID comes from deal_request_list imply the usage context: call this after listing to fetch one record. There is no explicit when-not or prerequisite statement, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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