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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful value by disclosing the shape of the return payload (deal plus contacts, products, related records), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 short sentences with the payload description front-loaded and the REST path appended as a reference. There is no waste, though the raw endpoint adds little for an agent that already has the schema.

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 single-record read with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the missing piece an agent needs: what the returned record contains. Nothing critical is absent, though name-based sibling routing is not spelled out.

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 single deal_id parameter is documented in the schema as a UUID record id. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource ('One full deal record') and enumerates what it returns (contacts, products, related records), which implicitly distinguishes it from cogmento_list_deals. It never names the sibling explicitly, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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 singular 'one full deal record' plus 'GET /deals/{id}/' implies this is the single-record fetch versus the list tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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