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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable non-structured context: API key requirement, that a revenue summary is returned alongside, and the critical unit caveat that money is in minor units (cents) and must be divided by 100. That unit disclosure is exactly the kind of trap-avoiding detail annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose and return shape, then routing to the sibling, then behavioral caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the three-paragraph layout is slightly looser than needed for a three-parameter read.

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, and the description compensates by describing the return (deals plus total/closed/open revenue summary) and the currency-unit gotcha. Auth and safety are covered. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret results.

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 limit/offset/status are already fully documented including defaults and max. The description only restates that filtering by status exists and that results are paged; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('List deals') with the return shape ('flat, paged array... with revenue totals') and explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_pipeline ('board view with deals grouped into stages'). An agent can distinguish the two without opening 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?

Explicit about when to use it ('when you want deals as data — to count them, filter one status, or page through many') and names the alternative tool get_pipeline for the grouped view. Nothing left to inference.

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