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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that related records can be embedded in the same call and gives the underlying GET endpoint, but does not cover error behavior, permissions, or response shape. This is useful context beyond annotations, though modest.

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?

Two compact sentences with no wasted wording. The primary behavior is front-loaded, followed by the optional expansion and endpoint reference.

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-only get-by-id tool with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It tells the agent what is returned and how includes work. Minor gaps around error cases or pagination are not central for this lookup.

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%, and both deal_id and includes are documented in the schema, including the note that embedding avoids an extra call. The description echoes the includes fields but adds no syntax or formatting details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 specific retrieval action and resource: one deal by id. The optional includes are named, so the agent knows the scope. It does not explicitly contrast with list_deals or search_deals, but the single-id framing makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by id' and the optional includes, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_deals, search_deals, or get_deal_stats. An agent can infer the direct-lookup case, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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