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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), but the description adds genuinely new behavior: Revamp CRM applies the limit server-side, no total is returned, and may_have_more signals a full page. That is exactly the kind of pagination caveat an agent needs. It does, however, conflict with the schema's claim that 'the reply says how many matched in total', creating uncertainty about the return contract.

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 tight sentences: filterable fields first, then the pagination caveat, then the endpoint. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing 'GET /Deals/Search' is low-value for an agent that never makes raw HTTP calls.

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 14-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of explaining the result envelope (no total, may_have_more) and the text-match nature of filters. The contradiction about total counts and the unmentioned sorting/date/value parameters leave minor gaps, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

With 50% schema coverage across 14 parameters, the description compensates partially by naming most filter fields and noting they are text matches. It omits sort_by, sort_direction, value, and expected_close_date entirely, and its statement about limit semantics directly contradicts the limit parameter's own schema description, so it does not fully resolve the gaps.

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 ('Search') and resource ('deals') and enumerates nine filterable fields, giving a precise picture of what can be queried. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like revampcrm_list_deals or revampcrm_list_deals_by_stage, so an agent must infer which list-style tool to pick.

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 mention of text matching 'as Revamp CRM defines it' hints at when this is appropriate (fuzzy/any-field lookup) versus exact listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the three deal-listing siblings.

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