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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: responses include visible pipeline card IDs usable by pipeline-item-write, and monetary values are access-gated by invoice permissions. No pagination limits or failure modes are described, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Roughly four sentences, front-loaded with the verb/resource and then the cross-tool routing. Sentences are information-dense but slightly cramped, packing data-model, permissions, return values, and siblings together with no explicit separation.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the notable extras an agent needs: the parent/child relationship with contacts, the pipeline_id correlation to pipeline-item-write, and the invoice-access requirement for deal values. It omits return shape and pagination envelope details, but these are minor for a read tool.

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% and each parameter already carries its own description, sort syntax, and filter examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces that list supports filters, sorting, pagination and an optional pipeline_id, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. 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 pair (list/show) on a named resource (sales deals) and clarifies the data model: multiple deals can belong to the same contact. An agent can distinguish this read tool from deal-write, deal-activity-read, and deal-message-read without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes activity and conversation reads to deal-activity-read and deal-message-read with deal_id, and notes deal values require invoice access. It does not explicitly state when to choose 'show' over 'list' beyond the schema's id requirement, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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