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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as authentication, errors, or pagination, but it doesn't contradict annotations. With annotations providing the key transparency, the description meets the baseline.

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 one short sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

For a simple single-parameter get operation with annotations and an output schema present, the description fully satisfies the need to understand what the tool does. The output schema covers return values, and annotations cover safety, so no additional context is necessary.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter dealId is described as 'The deal ID'. The description's 'by ID' adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies since the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 clearly states the action (Get), the resource (CRM deal), and the scope (by ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_deals by specifying that it retrieves a single deal's detailed information based on an ID.

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 'by ID' clearly indicates this tool is used when you have a deal ID and need its details. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a simple get-by-id operation.

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