gin_deal_memo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety and behavior burden. It discloses honesty ('won't soften an overpriced verdict'), the non-appraisal nature, and enumerates return sections. It does not explicitly state read-only or cover error cases, but for a generation tool this is strong disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence with a compact list of contents followed by two short caveats. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the memo sections (GIN verdict, M-Value AVM, yield, strengths/risks, district read, next steps), making the return value clear. For a one-parameter tool, this provides complete operational context.

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 schema already documents the single listing_id parameter with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond confirming 'one listing id'. This is the baseline for schema-covered 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 opens with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('structured investor DEAL MEMO') for one listing id, then enumerates the memo's sections. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_listing or get_gin_score, which are raw data retrieval rather than synthesis.

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?

It is clear this tool is for generating an investor-focused memo for a single listing, and the 'Decision support, not a certified appraisal' phrase gives context on appropriate expectations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use them, so it falls just short of a 5.

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