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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable non-behavior disclosure — it will not accept jobs, contact counterparties, execute providers, broadcast transactions, or move money — which clarifies the tool is purely evaluative and non-committal, and the 'FREE' note sets cost expectations. No contradiction with annotations; the description reinforces them.

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 sentences with the key value proposition ('FREE first-stop routing precheck') front-loaded. The negative list is slightly long but each item adds distinct scope information, earning its place. Nothing extraneous or repetitive enough to warrant a 3.

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 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description explains the tool's role well but omits what the agent should expect in return — a verdict, a routing recommendation, a score? Since no output schema exists, the description carries the burden of hinting at the return shape and fails to do so. It is adequate for routing intent but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the 7 parameters, but it mentions none of them. While names like title, budget, and currency are self-explanatory, requiredCapabilities (an array of up to 20 strings) is ambiguous and could mean skills, certifications, or provider capabilities. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 uses specific verbs ('evaluates,' 'routes') and names the resource ('deal'), clearly stating it is a first-stop precheck that determines preliminary fit and routing. It also explicitly lists what it does not do, which distinguishes it from siblings like mars_commerce_quote, publish_demand, and record_commission_event without needing to open any 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?

The phrase 'Send a deal to MARS first' gives explicit temporal placement in the workflow, and the negative list ('does not accept jobs, contact counterparties, execute providers...') implicitly tells the agent this tool is for evaluation only, not execution. However, it never names alternative tools or states 'use X instead when Y,' so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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