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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses which fields appear conditionally (payment_url only at awaiting_payment, live_url only at live) and that recent messages are bundled into the response.

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?

One compact sentence with the most useful information (the status enumeration and conditional fields) up front. The parenthetical insertions are efficient, though the fragment style ('Also returns...') is slightly clipped rather than polished.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns; it covers status values, the conditional URLs, and messages, but omits the overall response shape and any error/not-found behavior. Combined with two fully undocumented parameters, it is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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% and the description never mentions deal_id or deal_key. deal_id is self-evident from its name, but deal_key — plausibly a credential or scoping token — is left completely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 names the resource (a deal) and precisely what is returned — its status, conditional URLs, and last messages. It implicitly distinguishes itself from start_deal and send_message by being a read of existing deal state, though it never states an explicit verb like 'retrieve'.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., that a deal must have been created via start_deal), and no reference to any alternative tool. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name.

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