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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed-world read. The description adds that it returns per-clause agreed options, satisfaction scores, and reasoning, but doesn't disclose pagination, response limits, or error behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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, tightly focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the key return values without any 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?

For a simple read tool with one fully documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is almost complete. It could benefit from mentioning usage context or return format, but nothing critical is missing given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 100% (the only parameter dealId is fully described). The description adds no parameter detail, but with complete schema coverage the baseline is 3; the description's listing of returned data indirectly confirms the parameter's role, nudging it to 4.

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 clear verb (get) and resource (deal), specifying the returned content: per-clause agreed options, satisfaction scores, and reasoning. This distinguishes it from siblings like download_contract or get_template, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 implies usage by outlining the returned data, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., download_contract). Usage is contextually implied but not specified.

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