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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently states that value figures are computed only over disclosed deals and never extrapolated, which is critical for accurate interpretation. Also mentions the corpus size of 74 deals, setting expectations.

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?

Two clear sentences that front-load the key purpose and include critical details about value computation. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but very efficient with no wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (counts, totals, median, largest deals) but lacks specifics on output format or field names. While adequate for a simple tool, it could be more complete to fully guide an agent.

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?

Only one parameter 'top_n' with full schema description (default 10, min 1, max 25). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 explicitly states it provides an 'aggregate view' of the full 74-deal M&A corpus, including counts by year, deal type, status, value statistics, and largest deals. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on corpus-level summary rather than individual deals or other analyses.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for overview statistics but does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Considering sibling tools like 'get_deals' or 'get_deal', this tool's purpose is somewhat clear but lacks explicit contextual cues.

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