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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful operational context beyond annotations: no data-credit charge, uncached reads count toward the API request limit, and identical requests are cached for 15 minutes.

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 front-loaded and compact: four sentences cover purpose, search behavior, cost/rate-limit behavior, and cache reuse. Every sentence supplies useful information without filler.

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 still names the returned filter fields and explains search, billing, rate-limit, and caching behavior. It is sufficient for correct invocation, with the main gap being no explicit routing against sibling metadata tools.

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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful semantics for `search` by naming fuzzy-match targets (labels, aliases, option values) and clarifies the no-search default of returning all pages.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns DealMachine search filters and enumerates the returned attributes. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling metadata tools such as dealmachine_fields.

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?

Explains that including `search` performs fuzzy matching while omitting it returns all pages, and recommends reusing definitions because caching applies. It gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance versus sibling tools such as dealmachine_fields.

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