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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one real behavioral fact beyond that — that id-mode expands the payload to include notes and tasks — but says nothing about pagination limits, default page size, or ordering.

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 two clauses, each carrying distinct information (list mode vs. id mode). No filler, no restatement 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 9-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the mode switch but not result shape, pagination behavior, or whether filters combine conjunctively. Adequate to call it, not complete enough to predict what comes back.

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 only 44%, so the description needs to carry weight. It clarifies the most consequential parameter (`id` switches from list to detail mode with nested notes/tasks) and hints at stage/contact/company filtering, but leaves limit, offset, pipelineId, companyId, contactId and deleted entirely to 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 (list) and resource (deals), and importantly discloses a second mode: passing `id` returns a single deal with notes and tasks. That dual-mode description lets an agent distinguish the read path from deals_manage, though it never names the sibling 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?

It gives one concrete routing rule ('pass `id` to fetch one deal'), which is genuinely useful. But there is no guidance on when to use this versus deals_manage, or how to combine filters, so usage is only partially implied rather than spelled out.

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