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 only the endpoint routing (GET /people/{id}/deals vs /companies/{id}/deals); it says nothing about return volume, pagination behavior, or empty results beyond what the offset schema note implies.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the endpoint mapping. Nothing is wasted, though the endpoint line is proximity-to-redundant with the operation name for an agent that already knows the resource.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the definition supplies enough to invoke it correctly; safety is covered by annotations. The one gap is any statement about result shape or that pagination is available, which the schema only obliquely covers via next_offset.

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% – limit, offset, contact_id, and contact_type are all documented in the schema (including the next_offset pagination hint and the enum for contact_type). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 ('List the deals') plus the exact scoping ('that belong to one person or one company'), and even supplies the REST endpoints. This clearly separates it from the sibling teamgate_list_deals, which lists deals without a contact scope.

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 scoping phrase implies when it is appropriate (you have a person or company id and want its deals), but there is no explicit when-not and no alternative named (e.g., use list_deals for all deals, or search for filtered queries). Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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