Deal Autopsy

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the paid-key requirement for per-deal autopsy reads, the progressive disclosure of comparables (count-only by default), and that the verdict text is always included. These are behavioral traits not captured in annotations or schema.

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 dense but every sentence carries weight—purpose, return fields, paid-tier behavior, progressive disclosure, and an example. It is front-loaded with the core function, though a bit jargon-heavy. It earns its length for a tool with this complexity.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return structures, yet it explains the key return elements and the pricing/progressive disclosure behavior. It provides a complete picture for an agent to select and invoke the tool, including the example call and escalation guidance.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds practical meaning: the comparables parameter's escalation behavior, the default count-only mode, and an example invocation. This goes beyond the schema's baseline by clarifying the cost/benefit tradeoff.

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: 'Tracked data-center M&A / capex deal flow' and clearly states what it returns—recent deals (buyer, seller, value, market) plus a DCPI verdict and time-to-power. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'hyperscaler_deals' or 'list_transactions' by focusing on the DCPI 'grid-reality' 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 gives clear context on when to use the tool and how to escalate comparables detail ('Escalate only for deals you're drilling into'). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the purpose is well-scoped and the example ('Try: deal_autopsy limit=15') shows practical usage.

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