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

The 'WRITE:' prefix and 'Returns the new deal' align with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) rather than contradicting them, and the return statement adds information annotations cannot express. However, it does not disclose the destructive/irreversible nature or auth requirements beyond what the annotations already state.

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 dense fragments with zero filler: the write marker, the semantic description with prerequisite pointer, and the return behavior. The most decision-relevant facts (write, what it links, where to get the stage id) are front-loaded.

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 explicit 'Returns the new deal' fills the return-value gap, and the pipeline prerequisite resolves the one ambiguous required id. Annotations already carry the safety profile, so remaining gaps (side effects, error cases) are minor.

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 every parameter (note, price, broker_id, contact_id, property_id, deal_stage_id) is already documented in the schema. The description only narrates the three required relationships and adds no format or constraint detail, so baseline 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 precise verb ('create') plus the exact resource and its relationships: a deal linking a contact to a property in a pipeline stage. It also names the sibling tool that supplies stage ids, so an agent can distinguish it from propstack_update_deal and propstack_list_deal_pipelines 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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite — fetch stage ids via propstack_list_deal_pipelines — which is clear usage context. It does not state when NOT to use this (e.g., to modify an existing deal, use propstack_update_deal), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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