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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: no network calls, samples loaded once at module init, content is sanitized and safe, and the 'full' section stitches other sections in order. This goes well beyond what the schema or annotations provide, giving the agent a complete understanding of side effects and return behavior.

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 each sentence earning its place: purpose, inputs, return value, special case ('full'), safety, and performance. It avoids redundancy and front-loads the primary purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: what it returns (markdown content and deep-link URL), the nature of the data (sanitized example), and operational details (no network calls). It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully by listing exact enum values for deal_type (FF, BRRRR, NC) and section (summary, financials, risk_notes, full). It also explains the meaning of the 'full' section, adding value beyond the schema's bare enum definitions.

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 identifies the tool's action with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('sanitized public sample section from Refpro's reference deal library'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on retrieving sample sections, whereas deal_quick_check and methodology_faq appear to serve different purposes.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: it returns sanitized example data that is 'safe to surface verbatim to end users.' It also implies when not to use it by stating 'not a real customer deal.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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