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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description earns credit for what they don't say: "without ... spending credits" is meaningful domain context for a paid-credit API, and "if there is one" discloses that a missing prospect is a normal outcome rather than an error.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the credit/read-only reassurance last. Slight redundancy between sentence one and two ("Get prospect by record" vs "Look up the prospect that tracks..."), but no 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 and a nested query object, the description should say more about the return value: does a hit return a full prospect object, and what is returned when no prospect exists? It only gestures at this with "if there is one."

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?

The description itself gives no parameter detail, and the reported coverage is low, but the nested schema fully documents record_id formats (prop_123, person_456, bare number) and the record_type enum. The description partially compensates by enumerating 'property, person, or company', which mirrors the enum values.

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 ("Get prospect by record") and clarifies the lookup key: the prospect that tracks a property, person, or company. That distinguishes it from ID-based siblings such as dealmachine_prospect_get, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "if there is one" signals a nullable lookup and hints you should call it when you already have a property/person/company record. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over dealmachine_prospect_get, dealmachine_prospect_search, or dealmachine_post_prospects_check.

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