Hyperscaler Deal Tracker

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: 'live feed', '10-min refresh', regex-based extraction of dollar figures and megawatts, actor classification, and the typical volume ('$1B+/week'). This gives the agent an accurate picture of freshness, latency, and what kind of data to expect.

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 earns its place: scope, data source/extraction method, refresh cadence, use cases, and exclusions. It front-loads the core identity ('Hyperscaler AI Deal Tracker — live feed') and uses compact phrasing without unnecessary filler.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains data source, refresh behavior, extraction logic, classification, intended uses, and exclusions. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and to route to alternatives when appropriate.

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 single parameter 'limit' is fully documented in the schema with type, min, max, and default. The description does not add new semantic detail about this parameter, but with 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's mention of 'recent' deals and '10-min refresh' slightly reinforces what 'limit' acts on, but adds no parameter syntax details.

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 identifies a specific resource ('live feed of ... AI deals'), a concrete mechanism ('Pulls from dchub news pipeline, extracts $-figures + MW via regex, classifies by actor'), and a precise scope ('$1B+ AI-capex feed'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming actors and use cases, so an agent can separate it from list_transactions and deal_autopsy without inspecting schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use for tracking AI capex events..., capacity announcements, and competitive intel') and explicit when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives ('Do NOT use for the full historical M&A comp set (use list_transactions) or a single-deal teardown with grid context (use deal_autopsy)'). This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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