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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it fully delivers: it discloses that content is sanitized example data, never a real customer deal, safe to surface verbatim, and that there are no network calls because samples load once at module init. This is rich behavioral context beyond the name and schema.

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?

Six sentences, each adding new information: purpose, use cases, parameters, return value, safety behavior, and sibling routing. The key behavior is front-loaded and nothing is filler.

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 two enum params, no output schema, and no annotations, this description fully specifies what to pass, what the tool returns, the canonical link, safety guarantees, and the alternative tool. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates completely: it spells out both allowed deal_type values (FF | BRRRR | NC) and both section options (summary, financials, risk_notes or full), and explains that 'full' stitches the three in order. This adds meaning beyond the bare enum lists in the schema.

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 public sample section from Refpro's reference deal library.' It names the concrete deliverable (sanitized example markdown plus a deep-link URL) and explicitly contrasts itself with deal_quick_check, making sibling differentiation immediate.

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?

The description gives explicit trigger conditions ('when a user asks to see what a Refpro report... looks like', 'wants an example before signing up'), and an explicit exclusion: 'Do not use to analyze a user's own deal; call deal_quick_check for that.' That is unambiguous routing guidance.

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