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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world safety. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: no paging, the reply is truncated to `limit`, and it reports how many matched. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the truncation disclosure is valuable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then truncation note. No wasted text.

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?

Given no output schema, the description usefully names the fields each deal contains and explains the truncation/count behavior. It omits sorting semantics and error behavior, but an agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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 93%, so the schema already explains nearly all 14 parameters in detail. The description only groups the filter categories and lists returned deal fields, adding little parameter-specific meaning beyond the structured 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?

Clearly states the verb and resource ('List deals') and specifies scope via optional filters and returned fields. It does not distinguish itself from closely named siblings like revampcrm_search_deals or revampcrm_list_deals_by_stage, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 description implies this is the general listing tool with optional filters, but it never says when to choose it over search_deals, list_deals_by_stage, or list_contact_deals. An agent must infer the routing.

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