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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real context beyond them: a per-surface cap of 10 results, the exact return shape { results: [{id, title, url}] }, and the round-trip contract that each id feeds into `fetch`. It stops short of error or empty-result behavior, but for a read-only search that is a minor omission.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is searched and the return shape. The final client-compatibility sentence earns its place by routing between this and the native roster, though it is the most compressible part.

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 correctly supplies the return format and result cap, and it flags the conditional availability of notes. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge-case behavior is unspecified.

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?

Only one parameter, whose schema already documents it fully at 100% coverage. The phrase 'filtered by this query' confirms the query narrows the public feed, which is marginal added meaning. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb plus two clearly-named resources: the public marketplace deals feed filtered by query, and the member's own notes. It distinguishes itself from siblings notes_search and deals_list by covering both surfaces in one call, so an agent can tell immediately what this tool does that the others don't.

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 scopes use to clients that only speak search/fetch (naming ChatGPT's chat connector mode) and routes the agent to connections_pulse and connections_execute for the full native roster. It also states the precondition that notes only appear 'once this connection is bound to a company'.

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