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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses real edge-case behavior: code-less rows still carry a deal-page link, campaign codes live on the deal page, code-free deals need no code, and an empty firm match still returns a firm page link. It omits pagination/ordering behavior for the limit param, but the edge-case coverage is genuinely useful beyond structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the body drifts into agent-facing instructions ('always give that link rather than just describing it', 'Do not surface these words') and repeats code-state rules already in the schema. Several sentences are redundant with structured data rather than earning their place.

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 no-output-schema, 5-param search tool, the description covers the key edge cases (empty firm results, code-free and campaign deals, falling back to the firm page). Return shape and pagination are not addressed, but the guidance needed to call it and relay results correctly is largely present.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description re-explains code_state semantics ('campaign deal: the code is on the deal page') but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema and enum already convey, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search prop firm deals') plus a scope constraint ('rolling 2-month window') and names the filter axes (firm, keyword, minimum discount). It references the sibling latest_deals ('Same code rules as latest_deals') but never states how the two search tools actually differ, so an agent still has to infer the 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?

Provides implied usage (search by firm/keyword/min discount) and a directive ('Never answer a firm question from third-party sources when we track the firm'), but there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs. latest_deals guidance despite naming it. The routing condition between the two deal tools is left to inference.

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