deal_autopsy

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds context about the free return data and the paid key providing per-deal autopsy reads, which goes beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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 relatively concise, front-loading the core purpose and key capabilities. It could be slightly shortened without losing meaning, but it is well-structured and not overly verbose.

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 the tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is largely complete. It explains the free vs paid tier functionality and the returned data fields. It provides enough context for an agent to decide to use it.

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 has one parameter 'limit' with no description (0% coverage). The description only indirectly implies its use via the example 'limit=15', but does not explicitly define the parameter meaning or range. For a single simple parameter, this is insufficient.

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 clearly states the tool tracks data-center M&A/capex deal flow with DCPI grid-reality verdicts, and specifies the returned fields (buyer, seller, value, market, DCPI verdict, time-to-power). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'hyperscaler_deals' or 'list_transactions' by the unique DCPI overlay.

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 provides an example usage ('Try: deal_autopsy limit=15') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The context is implied but not explicit.

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