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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by mentioning the requirement of an API key and explaining that money amounts are in cents, which are not covered by annotations. This enhances transparency 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 concise and well-structured, with a clear first paragraph on purpose and a second paragraph on usage and additional notes. No unnecessary information, so it is highly efficient.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description specifies what the tool returns (deals plus revenue summary) and notes currency units. It also contrasts with get_pipeline, making the context complete. All necessary information is provided.

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 input schema provides thorough descriptions for all three parameters: limit (with default and max), offset (pagination), and status (with examples of allowed values). The schema coverage is complete, and the tool description reinforces the filtering and pagination semantics.

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 tool lists deals as a flat, paged array, optionally filtered by status, and includes revenue totals. It explicitly differentiates from get_pipeline which presents deals in a board view, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly described: use when you want deals as data for counting, filtering, or pagination. It also explicitly states when not to use it (use get_pipeline for board view), providing clear guidance.

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