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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: one-deal-per-creator uniqueness and the upsert-like stage-move on an existing deal. It omits return shape and error behavior, so not a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the uniqueness rule, then the exclusion. Dense but no wasted words; slight compression makes the second sentence need a re-read.

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 could say what a successful call returns, but it fully covers the input routes and the create-vs-update behavior for an agent to act correctly. Minor gap in return-value disclosure.

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 the schema already documents stage, confirm, creator_id and enrollment_id with sources for each id. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Put a creator in the pipeline') and clarifies the two input routes (creator id or inbox thread). The clarification that an existing deal causes a stage move slightly blurs the create-vs-update boundary, but it is still distinguishable from siblings like update_deal and move_deal_stage.

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 clear context for when to use the tool and an explicit exclusion: website threads have no deals yet, so track a site by its status instead. It does not explicitly name update_deal or move_deal_stage as alternatives, which keeps it short of a 5.

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