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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-source behavior are covered. The description adds only "public record" and the presence of redeem_url/agent_instructions, which is return-content info that the existing output schema already conveys; nothing is said about what the mode parameter changes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and access path (id) come first. Nothing to trim, though the brevity trades away detail that belongs in the other dimensions.

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?

Because an output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only profile, the return values and safety needn't be explained. The agent can still succeed calling with only 'id', but the undocumented 'mode' parameter and absent when-to-use guidance leave a meaningful gap for a lookup tool in a family of deal 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains 'id' only conceptually (one deal, by id, no format), and the second parameter 'mode' with default 'full' is never mentioned or given possible values — a real blind spot for a 2-param tool.

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 with scope: "Get one deal's public record by id." That cleanly separates it from search_deals (list) and the compare_* siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly. Purpose is unambiguous without opening the 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?

"by id" implies an id must already be in hand, but the description never says when to use this versus search_deals (to find the id) or compare_deals. No exclusions, prerequisites, or routing guidance of any kind.

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