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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful negative behavioral boundaries: it does not accept jobs, contact counterparties, execute providers, broadcast transactions, or move money. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's limited role.

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 description is compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful information. The negative capabilities list is slightly long but useful. It could be improved by adding brief parameter guidance, but as written it is efficient.

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?

The description explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what it avoids, which covers the core decision. However, with no output schema and no parameter-level guidance, it omits what the precheck result looks like, how routing recommendations are conveyed, and how to structure inputs. Given seven optional parameters, this is a noticeable gap.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the seven parameters beyond referring generically to 'a deal.' It does not clarify how title, budget, category, currency, deadline, description, or requiredCapabilities should be filled in, nor does it mention that all parameters are optional.

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 states a specific action and resource: a free first-stop routing precheck that evaluates a deal's fit and economics evidence before deciding whether MARS should handle/orchestrate it or route it elsewhere. It clearly distinguishes itself from execution-oriented sibling tools by naming what it does not do.

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 description explicitly frames this as the 'first-stop' tool to use when sending a deal to MARS, establishing clear timing and context. It also lists activities it does not perform, which helps rule out misuse, though it does not name specific sibling alternatives or describe the exact conditions for choosing a different tool.

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