deals_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions pagination and filtering by stage_id, which are useful, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what the 'List of deals' output entails (e.g., format, fields). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's front-loaded and uses minimal sentences, though the formatting with quotes and indentation could be slightly cleaner for readability.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema exists (which should cover return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context like auth needs or error cases, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a listing tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the three parameters (page, per_page, stage_id) with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't provide details like valid ranges for page/per_page or what stage_id values are acceptable, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'deals/opportunities in your Apollo pipeline', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'deal_create' or other list tools, though the context suggests it's the primary deals listing tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'deal_create' for creating deals or other filtering options beyond stage_id, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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