list_deals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by mentioning field selection presets and filtering, which are behavioral options beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist.

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, front-loading the core action ('List deals by type') followed by key capabilities. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and rich input schemas, the description covers the essential behavior (listing, type, filters, field selection) but omits mention of pagination. While the page parameter is in the schema, an agent might benefit from knowing pagination is supported. Overall, it is nearly complete for a list 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by summarizing dealType enum values and mentioning field presets, but these are already detailed in the schema. The description reinforces key parameters without significant new information.

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 deals by type (DCA, Combo, Terminal) and distinguishes it from siblings like get_deal (single deal) and create_deal (mutation). The verb 'list' combined with resource 'deals' and explicit type enumeration leaves no ambiguity.

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 implies usage context by specifying filtering capabilities (status, botId) and field selection presets. It does not explicitly state when not to use or reference alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over siblings like get_deal for single-item retrieval or list_bots for bots.

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