create_deal

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds critical behavior: each call creates a new deal without checking for duplicates, requires an API key, value is in minor currency units, and the created deal enters the pipeline at the first stage. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and constraints.

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 four focused sentences: purpose first, then usage guidance, then key behavioral details. Every sentence contributes unique information with no filler or repetition, making it easy to scan and apply.

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 8 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and basic annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: when to use, duplication risk, alternative tool, auth requirement, unit convention, defaults, return value, and pipeline placement. This is a complete picture for an agent to invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description does add natural-language emphasis on leadEmail as the key identifying field and clarifies the default behavior for value/currency, but most of this repeats schema descriptions like 'Deal value in minor currency units (default 0).' The schema carries the main parameter burden.

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 and resource: 'Open a new deal against a lead's email address.' It clearly states the tool's function and differentiates from siblings by mentioning list_deals and update_deal, so the purpose is unmistakable.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it when a conversation turns into a real opportunity worth tracking.' It also provides exclusions and alternatives: check list_deals first to avoid duplication, and use update_deal to change an existing deal. This is model usage guidance.

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