List Deals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add domain semantics (deal status codes, the budget/deal relationship). However, it omits useful read-operation context such as pagination defaults, result limits, or auth/permission requirements for a tool that returns a paged collection.

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?

Three short sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose; the trailing sentence about budgets earns its place by clarifying terminology. No filler or 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?

For a read tool with seven optional parameters and no output schema, the description establishes purpose and filters but says nothing about the shape of the returned collection (fields, pagination behavior, totals). It is adequate but leaves the response contract entirely unstated.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, making the baseline 3. The description restates the deal_status legend (already in the schema) and adds nothing about sort, page, page_size, or the deal_type_id values.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (budgets/deals from Productive.io), and the final sentence clarifies that budgets are deals linked to projects, which disambiguates the two terms an agent might confuse. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the singular sibling get_deal, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 says what can be filtered ('Filter by project, company, or deal status') but never states when to use this list tool versus productive_get_deal or other list endpoints, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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