Deal ledger

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is aggregate totals rather than raw deal rows, which is genuine context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about whether results are workspace-scoped, dated, or paginated.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that lists the returned metrics with zero padding. It works as a summary, though the missing verb and the unreconciled word 'All' cost a point against the status filter.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the aggregates returned, which is the most important thing an agent needs. However, for a single-enum-parameter tool it omits the status filter semantics entirely, leaving a real gap in how to call it correctly.

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% and the sole parameter is a meaningful status enum (pending_approval, agreed, completed, cancelled, all). The description never mentions filtering by status and its phrase 'All deals' actively implies no filtering is possible, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific resource (deals) and enumerates the aggregates returned (completed revenue, pending/agreed value, average discount from ask), which is far more informative than a tautology. It implicitly distinguishes itself from write-oriented siblings such as propose_deal and approve_deal by being a reporting view, though it never says so explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no indication of when an agent should call deal_ledger rather than list_listings or query a specific deal. The only usage signal is inferable from the noun 'ledger'.

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