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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds value beyond them: the call is free, needs only the id, and crucially warns the agent only to act on deals in 'funded' state. It doesn't describe response shape or failure modes (e.g., unknown deal id).

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the purpose, then cost, then the actionable state constraint. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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 usefully previews the returned fields (state, amounts, deadlines, outcome), covering the main gap. For a trivial single-param read tool this is close to complete; only error/unknown-id behavior is left unstated.

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%, so deal_id's meaning is fully documented in the schema. 'Needs only the deal id' reinforces the single-parameter shape but adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond what the schema already says.

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 and resource ('Get the status of a deal') and enumerates the returned surface (state, amounts, deadlines, outcome), which cleanly separates it from list_deals and the mutation siblings (create_deal, confirm_deal). Siblings are not named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Act only on state funded' gives a concrete precondition for acting on the result, and 'Free; needs only the deal id' tells the agent the call is cheap and requires no extra context. It does not state when to prefer this over list_deals for a single deal, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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