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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses sort order, privacy handling for names, tag matching including legacy names, and a maximum result cap of 200. This adds substantial behavioral context not visible in structured data.

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 a single dense paragraph with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and returns a useful enumeration, then adds examples and constraints. The structure is acceptable though it could be slightly clearer with separate clauses.

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 listing tool with no output schema, it covers the main returned fields, sorting, filtering examples, privacy behavior, and limit enforcement. The semantics of open_only and updated_since remain implicit, but the overall definition is adequate for most calls.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains tag (including former names), stage filtering, and the 200-result cap. However, open_only and updated_since are not explained, and limit's default is not stated, leaving clear gaps for some parameters.

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 lists school deals (Сделки школы), newest first, and enumerates the fields returned (stage, course, amount, tags, source). It is easily distinguished from siblings like get_deal (single deal) and list_deal_tags (tags only).

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?

Provides clear usage context with concrete examples: filtering by stage for 'deals awaiting payment' and by tag for 'who is silent'. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer get_deal or other siblings, but the intended use cases are clear.

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