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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds the crucial behavioral fact that it 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns instructional content, which prevents an agent from assuming the call performs the listing. Minor noise about the REST API and a check date adds no behavior.

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 key fact — that this returns instructions rather than deals — should be the first clause but instead appears after a boilerplate sentence about ChatGPT/Claude/any AI agent. The trailing 'Agile CRM's official API: Yes... no official MCP server (checked 22 Oct 2026)' is filler that does not help an agent decide or call the tool.

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 description must characterize the return value; it does so loosely ('screens, buttons, fields'), which is enough to set expectations. However, the name/deliverable mismatch and the absence of any statement about scope (which deals, all vs. filtered) leave gaps for a zero-parameter listing 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter confusion is possible.

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 names the resource (deals in the user's Agile CRM account) but the actual deliverable only emerges mid-sentence: 'Returns how to do it in Agile CRM step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'. That is a guide-generation tool, not a data-listing tool, which diverges from the name 'list_deals' and could lead an agent to expect deal records. The real purpose is stated, but it is buried and in tension with the title.

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 an explicit two-step workflow: call this to get the step-by-step procedure, 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Agile CRM Cloud Browser'. That is concrete guidance on what to do next and names the actual family of execution tools. It stops short of exclusions (e.g., when to skip this and go straight to the browser, or how it relates to cotlet_app_guide).

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