deal_autopsy

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds valuable behavioral context: progressive disclosure (default returns only comparables count, escalate for summary/full) and paid key requirement for full autopsy read. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Description is informative but slightly verbose; front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, though could be tightened slightly by removing the example 'Try: deal_autopsy limit=15.' which is already implied.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, description fully explains return values (deals, buyer, seller, value, market) and verdict. Covers progressive disclosure and comparables escalation. Complete for a data-retrieval tool with no output schema.

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%. Description enriches parameters by explaining default values (limit ~15, comparables='none'), the meaning of each comparables option ('summary' for top-2 grounding signals, 'full' for complete cited set), and the cost implications (progressive disclosure to keep default cheap).

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 verdict overlay. It specifies what is returned (deals, buyer, seller, value, market) and distinguishes itself from siblings like hyperscaler_deals and list_transactions by its unique DCPI verdict focus.

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?

Provides guidance on usage: suggests a default limit (15) and explains progressive disclosure with comparables options. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with sibling tools like hyperscaler_deals or list_transactions, relying on the context of DCPI verdict to differentiate.

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