Search Deals

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that — a type mismatch between `condition.type` and the property type returns HTTP 400 — but says nothing about pagination limits, result ordering, or permission scoping beyond what the schema's body description states.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the filter rule, but the first two lines — "Search Deals." followed by "Search deals using flexible filters and sorting." — largely restate the title and each other. Removing that duplication would make the remaining content (type matching, identifier format, helper tools) much sharper.

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 tool whose complexity lives entirely in a deeply nested filter schema, the description covers the three things an agent could get wrong: choosing filterId vs orFilterGroups (handled in the body description), matching condition type to property type, and obtaining valid property identifiers. With 100% schema coverage and no output schema required, nothing essential is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by adding a semantic constraint invisible in the schema: `condition.type` must match the selected property's type. It also illustrates property identifier formats (`deal_name`, `contact_companyName`) and routes to `list_properties` for discovery, which is real added meaning.

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 states a clear verb and resource ("Search deals") and adds the mechanism ("using flexible filters and sorting"), so an agent knows what the tool does. It never distinguishes itself from the near-identical siblings `list_deals`, `find_deals_by_email`, or `list_deals_by_contact`, leaving the choice between them to inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the emphasis on "flexible filters and sorting" suggests this is the tool for filtered queries, but no when-to-use/when-not rule or alternative tool is named. It does provide actionable prerequisites by pointing to `list_properties` and `get_api_guide` for property identifiers, which is more guidance than nothing.

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