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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the types of events returned (manager notes, transfers, access opening, payments) and the limit of 30 events. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences with no waste. It front-loads the main purpose and provides useful context about the timeline events. It is concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description adequately covers what it returns (fields, person, events) and its purpose. It does not describe error handling or output structure, but for a getter this is sufficient. The description is complete enough for an agent to use it 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?

The input schema has only deal_id (integer) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explicitly explain deal_id, but the tool name and context make it obvious. Since there is only one parameter and its purpose is self-evident, the lack of description is acceptable, but it does not add meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves one deal with its fields, person, and last 30 timeline events. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_deals (which lists deals) and move_deal (which updates). The verb 'get' and the resource 'deal' are explicit, and the scope is specific.

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 provides context for when to use it: to understand what is happening with a person and what was agreed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer it is for retrieving a single deal with timeline, not for listing or modifying.

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