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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that content is sanitized example data, safe to surface verbatim, deterministic, makes no network calls, and is explicitly not an appraisal or lender commitment.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose, then use cases, inputs, outputs, behavior, and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place, especially because there are no annotations or output schema to offload that information.

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?

Given only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return formats, the included inventory, the deep-link URL, safe-to-surface behavior, determinism, no network calls, and how to route to sibling 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 compensate. It lists the two inputs, their enum values, and the default format, and it maps deal types to concrete use cases ('flip, a rental refinance or a ground-up build'). It could more explicitly tie FF/BRRRR/NC to each case, but it adds real meaning beyond the bare enums.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a sanitized example of Refpro's 1-Page Deal Sheet.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by stating what the tool is not for: full deal pack sections warrant sample_report_fetch, and analyzing a user's own deal warrants deal_quick_check.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use this when a user asks what a Refpro deal sheet looks like, what to hand or send a lender, or wants a one-page summary format.' It also names the alternatives explicitly with 'Do not use... call sample_report_fetch / deal_quick_check instead.'

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