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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the idempotency sentence largely restates idempotentHint. The description does add real value by saying won/lost transitions close the deal and require close date plus outcome reasons, and that CRM-synced deals are blocked. It omits the optimistic-concurrency contract (expected_stage_id/expected_revision) that governs whether the call succeeds.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before constraints. Little waste, though the idempotency sentence overlaps what idempotentHint already communicates.

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?

A destructive, nested-body mutation with no output schema and 16 undocumented body properties deserves more: the concurrency preconditions and the ordering fields are the main gaps. What is present (closing semantics, CRM restriction, idempotency) covers the highest-risk behaviors but not the full call contract.

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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate, but it explains only close_date, win/loss reasons and idempotencyKey. It says nothing about expected_stage_id and expected_revision (the concurrency guard), position/placement ordering semantics, target_entity_id, or the loss follow-up date.

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 and resource with scope ("Moves one deal to another stage"), which implicitly separates it from the bulk sibling moveDeals. It never names moveDeals explicitly, so the single-vs-bulk distinction must be inferred from the word "one".

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?

Gives concrete when-not guidance: deals synced from a CRM cannot be moved. It also conditions the won/lost path on supplying a close date and required outcome reasons. It does not name a sibling alternative for multi-deal moves or for editing a deal in place (updateDeal).

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