score_deal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (score, flags, benchmarks, thesis) and a tier requirement, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or data persistence. It adequately covers the core behavior but misses advanced operational traits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output details and usage guidelines in two efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it highly 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 complexity (AI scoring with 8 parameters) and no annotations/output schema, the description is mostly complete—it covers purpose, output, and usage context. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like rate limits or error cases, leaving minor gaps for a tool with significant functionality.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool uses these inputs for scoring. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Submit a deal for AI scoring') and the resource ('deal'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_deal' (retrieval) or 'search_deals' (search). It explicitly mentions the comprehensive output (score, flags, benchmarks, thesis), making the purpose distinct and well-defined.

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 explicit guidance on when to use ('when evaluating a deal not yet in the NDI database') and includes a prerequisite ('Requires agent_pro tier'), which helps differentiate it from alternatives like 'get_deal' (for existing deals) or 'search_comps' (for comparisons). No exclusions are stated, but the context is clear.

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