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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important data-behavior rules: amounts are shown 'ONLY where disclosed', and 'An undisclosed amount is absent, never estimated.' It also explains that every party is returned with role, side, and attribution, and that add-on identification includes its basis. This is rich behavioral context well beyond the annotations.

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 a dense single paragraph but every clause adds information: deal types, returned fields, the disclosure caveat, and filters. It is slightly run-on and could benefit from bullet points, but it is not padded or redundant.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating returned fields (type, status, dates, target, control, parties, money) and the major filter dimensions. It omits limit/pagination expectations, but the schema documents the limit default and maximum, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 60%, and the description compensates partially by mapping filters to concepts: 'firm (any party)' clarifies firm_dfx_id, 'target name' for query, 'target state' for state, and 'add-ons only' for add_on_only. It does not describe the limit parameter or enumerate transaction_type/control_status values, but the enum schemas fill some of that gap.

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 identifies the resource as private equity transactions and enumerates the deal types covered (acquisitions, add-ons, recapitalisations, carve-outs, etc.). It is specific and substantive enough that an agent can distinguish it from related tools like search_pe_firms or search_sponsor_deals without opening their 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 description explicitly lists the available filters: firm, target, platform, type, target state, since-date, add-ons only, control, and target name. This provides clear context for when and how to use the tool. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the filter list itself is practical usage guidance.

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