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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool retrieves an active deal (read-only) but does not mention error handling (e.g., not found), authentication needs, or rate limits. The description adds 'active' context beyond the schema but lacks deeper behavioral details.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key constraint (active deal).

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 lookup with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the identifier and the scope ('active'), which covers the core functionality. It could explicitly mention the return format (e.g., full deal object), but this is implied.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes the parameter as 'Heartly internal deal id (UUID).' The description adds no significant new meaning beyond confirming it is an internal UUID. Per guidelines, with high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states it looks up a single active deal by its Heartly internal UUID. The verb 'look up' and resource 'single active deal' are specific, and the identifier is precisely defined, distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_active_deals' and 'search_deals_by_category'.

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 when you have a specific UUID for a deal, and the sibling tool names suggest alternatives for listing or searching. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or include any exclusions.

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