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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the substantive behavioral fact that related records are opt-in embeds via an include list, and names the underlying endpoint GET /deals/{id}. It omits error behavior (e.g. unknown id) and whether embeds cost extra calls, which keeps it below 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?

One dense sentence with the resource and return fields front-loaded, then the endpoint. The parenthetical embed list is long but earns its place; the trailing 'GET /deals/{id}' is mildly redundant with 'by id' but useful for mapping to the REST API.

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 return content and does so (core deal fields plus optional embedded related records). Missing only edge-case behavior on invalid ids or partial permissions for a complex CRM resource.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond 'Related records to embed' by naming concrete embed targets (contacts, sales_account, deal_stage, owner, notes via sales_activities) and making clear the embeds are optional. It does not explain deal_id validation (positive integer) beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('One deal by id') and enumerates the returned fields (amount, expected close, probability, stage/pipeline/owner ids), so an agent can distinguish it from freshsales_list_deals or freshsales_get_account without opening a schema.

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 only implied by 'by id' — the description never says when to prefer this over list_deals, search/lookup, or when to add embeds versus making a follow-up call for contacts or notes. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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