Deal Autopsy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely valuable behavior: progressive disclosure, default comparables count, paid-key gating, escalation paths via 'summary' and 'full', and the fact that verdict text is always included. This goes well beyond the structured 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?

The description is longer than minimal but every sentence earns its place: core behavior, progressive disclosure, paid-key caveat, comparables escalation, and an example. It is front-loaded with the main purpose before diving into disclosure mechanics. Slight redundancy in the quoted questions could be trimmed, but overall it is well structured.

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 an output schema exists and annotations carry the read-only/idempotent safety profile, the description provides everything an agent needs: what is returned, default behavior, paid-key restriction, comparables escalation, and the kind of questions it answers. No critical operational detail 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful usage nuance: 'limit' is exemplified with a default of ~15, and 'comparables' gets a clear escalation ladder (none cheap, summary for top-2 signals, full for drilling in). It clarifies cost/behavior implications, not just types — a real addition over the schema.

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?

Description states a specific resource — data-center M&A/capex deal flow — and a distinct output: deals with DCPI grid-reality verdicts and per-deal autopsy reads. It differentiates itself from generic transaction or market tools by overlaying 'what is the real play?' on each market. The verb 'Returns' plus named output components make the tool's job unambiguous.

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 clear use-case context: answering 'who is actually buying data centers right now' and 'what is the real play behind this deal', plus a concrete 'Try deal_autopsy limit=15' example. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_transactions or get_market_intel, so the guidance is strong on context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use exclusions.

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