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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that by enumerating the exact payload contents (including the commission split between agents and the viewings log), which matters in the absence of an output schema.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core claim ('One deal in full') and then lists the payload. No filler, no redundancy with the title, everything earns its 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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration is exactly what an agent needs to judge whether this call returns the data it wants, and annotations plus the schema carry the rest. Only minor gaps remain (error behavior for a nonexistent or unauthorized deal id).

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 100% and the single dealId parameter already carries a UUID format, pattern, and the warning 'never invent one.' The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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?

The description states a specific resource and scope: a single deal returned in full, with a concrete enumeration of the contents (property, contact, notes, offer, commission breakdown, viewings log). This clearly distinguishes it from the plural sibling list_deals, though it never names that 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?

Usage is only implied: 'One deal' suggests the single-record counterpart to list_deals, so an agent can infer the retrieval-by-id intent. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives (list_deals, search), and no note on what happens if the id is unknown.

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