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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), and the description adds behavior beyond them: non-deduplicating create semantics, API-key requirement, minor-currency-unit convention, and the resulting pipeline state. This is exactly the beyond-annotations context the dimension rewards.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then usage, then warnings, then parameter caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information; no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description states the return shape ('Returns the created deal, which enters the pipeline at the first stage'), and there are no nested objects or enums needing further explanation. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds the concrete disambiguation '2500 means $25.00, not $2500' and restates the 0/USD defaults for value and currency, which materially reduces a common unit error not fully resolved by the schema text alone.

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 ('Open a new deal against a lead's email address') and explicitly contrasts itself with update_deal and list_deals, so an agent can route correctly without inspecting either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('when a conversation turns into a real opportunity worth tracking'), an explicit warning that it does not dedupe ('list_deals first if you might be duplicating'), and names the alternative for the update case ('use update_deal').

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