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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds filter context but does not explain pagination behavior, rate limits, result ordering, or other operational details beyond what the schema and annotations provide.

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?

The description is two short sentences plus a compact API reference, with no wasted text. The core action and key filters 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?

For a 14-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to understand the resource and the major filter dimensions. The schema carries the detailed parameter semantics, though the description could mention pagination or return shape more explicitly.

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 documents nearly all parameters thoroughly. The description enumerates several filters, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying how customer_id and customer_type interact or how date filters combine.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: list or search deals (sales opportunities). It does not explicitly distinguish this listing/search tool from get_deal or list_deal_pipelines, so it falls short of the top score.

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?

It implies usage by naming filter dimensions such as customer, phase, pipeline, status, responsible user, and dates, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of get_deal or how to choose among list tools. The guidance is adequate but incomplete.

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