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 without description help. The description adds the shape of the returned record and the API path, but says nothing about error behavior for a missing/invalid id or about permissions.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the endpoint as a secondary detail. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ('one deal by id with value, stage...') reads as a field dump rather than fully grammatical guidance, but 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the key fields a caller can expect. Combined with readOnly annotations and a fully documented 2-parameter schema, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly; only error/permission behavior is unstated.

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% – both deal_id and include_custom_fields are documented in the schema, including the default for include_custom_fields. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already states, so the 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 specific verb+resource ('One deal by id') and enumerates the returned facets (value, stage, status, owner, buyer, dates) plus the underlying endpoint. An agent can distinguish it from teamgate_list_deals, but the description never names the sibling alternatives explicitly.

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?

'by id' implies the tool is for single-record retrieval when the id is already known, which is a reasonable implicit signal against teamgate_list_deals or teamgate_search. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of what to do when the id is unknown.

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