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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the exact return format: 'summary rows (id, title, stage, amount, probability, owner, company, contact, next-action, isStale) plus pagination { page, perPage, total }.' This adds meaningful behavioral context about what results look like and pagination, which annotations do not cover.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action/filters, describing the return format, and pointing to the sibling tool for full detail. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant content.

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 and 8 optional parameters, the description still covers the essentials: the tool's purpose, filter options, pagination behavior, return fields, and how to obtain full detail. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all 8 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little extra meaning. It merely lists filter categories (stage/owner/company/contact/stale) without detailing syntax or whether filters combine with AND/OR, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List and search pipeline deals' – a specific verb+resource combination – and enumerates the filter dimensions (stage/owner/company/contact/stale) and pagination. It also explicitly distinguishes from get_deal by noting 'Use get_deal to fetch one deal's full detail by id,' so an agent can clearly separate list/search from detail retrieval.

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 explicit guidance: use this tool for list/search with filters and pagination, and use get_deal for full detail. This provides a clear when-to-use vs. alternative, which is exactly what an agent needs to select between the two deal-focused tools.

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