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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the connected-account auth prerequisite, newest-first ordering, inclusion of unsent Drafts, and returned fields. It still lacks pagination or limit behavior, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

The description is short, front-loaded, and each sentence carries useful information about audience, account state, ordering, included drafts, returned fields, and filters. It could be slightly more structured, but there is no wasted text.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does a good job listing the returned fields and the newest-first ordering. The main remaining gap is the limit parameter and pagination behavior, which an agent may need in order to call the tool correctly.

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 description says results can be filtered by client name or stage, which maps to two of the three parameters. However, schema coverage is only 33%, and the description does not explain the stage enum values, the limit parameter, or pagination behavior.

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 verb and resource: listing the connected creator's Deals and unsent Drafts, newest first, with summary fields. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_deal or list_invoices.

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?

It gives clear usage context: creators only, on their own Piku account, and requires the creator to connect. It also notes filtering by client name or stage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of get_deal or other listing siblings.

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