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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned payload — notes and history with 'when and from where' — which substitutes for the absent output schema. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., unknown id), keeping it short of a 5.

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 that leads with the verb and resource before enumerating fields. Every clause earns its place, especially the field list that stands in for a missing output schema.

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 description correctly documents what comes back (pipeline/stage, value, status, contact, source, notes, history timestamps and origins), and annotations cover the read-only profile. Only the missing error/not-found behavior and id format keep it from being fully complete.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. 'By id' ties the parameter to the deal's id, but no format or type guidance (string id vs numeric) is given, and the schema itself is bare. Minimal compensation for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (Show) and resource (one deal/opportunity) plus the fields it returns, and the singular 'one deal by id' implicitly contrasts with the plural crm_opportunities list tool. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, so an agent must infer the list-vs-single distinction.

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 phrase 'by id' hints that an existing opportunity_id is a prerequisite, but there is no statement of when to use this versus crm_opportunities, crm_save_opportunity, or crm_move_opportunity, and no exclusion guidance. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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