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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It usefully adds that stage and pipeline default to the first of the default pipeline and that it performs a POST to /deals, which is meaningful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't cover auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond creation, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action verb and mutation signal, then required fields and defaults, then the endpoint. Every sentence carries information and nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and a schema with full parameter descriptions, the description provides the essential missing context: required fields, default behavior, and the underlying HTTP method. Without an output schema, the lack of return-value documentation is a minor gap but not critical.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even without extra parameter detail. The description adds value by explicitly naming the three required fields and clarifying that contact_ids attach existing contacts (rather than creating new ones) and that stage/pipeline have fallback defaults.

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 opens with 'WRITE: create a deal,' pairing a specific verb with the exact resource. The 'WRITE:' prefix also signals the mutation nature immediately, and the resource distinguishes it from sibling create tools like freshsales_create_account and freshsales_create_contact.

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?

It states the required fields and default behavior for stage and pipeline, but gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like freshsales_update_deal or freshsales_create_contact. There is no context about prerequisites such as required permissions or when a deal should not be created.

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