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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds valuable non-obvious semantics: valueCents is in cents with a concrete example, and contactId/companyId can be used together. It does not mention return values or permission requirements, but the mutation behavior is clear from 'Create'.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: the core operation, required fields, and critical parameter semantics. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or filler language.

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?

The description covers the essential non-obvious aspects: required fields, cent-based values, and relational linking. It omits return value details and behavior on invalid IDs, but the schema documents most remaining parameters, making this adequate for a create tool without an output schema.

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 coverage is 63%, and the description compensates for undocumented parameters by explaining that contactId links to a contact and companyId links to a company, and both can be passed together. It also reinforces valueCents units with an example, adding meaning beyond the schema's 'Amount in cents'.

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 'Create a deal', a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like deals_get, deals_list, deals_update, and deals_delete. It also reinforces the core operation with required fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: creating a deal, with title and stageId as prerequisites. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like deals_update for modifying existing deals, but the create/update distinction is obvious from the tool name and siblings, so no exclusions are needed.

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