Hyperscaler Deal Tracker

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: data source (dchub news pipeline), extraction method (regex for $-figures and MW), classification by actor, and 10-minute refresh cadence. This goes beyond annotations, though it stops short of discussing output details or rate limits.

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 with information and every sentence contributes meaning. It is somewhat long but efficiently packed, using a list of actors and explicit exclusions to avoid redundancy. A slightly shorter phrasing could improve scannability.

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's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: input, data source, processing, use cases, and exclusions. The schema handles return value documentation, so no further explanation is needed.

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 (100% coverage) with clear description and default. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 is a live feed of hyperscaler AI deals, listing specific actors and data extraction methods. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming excluded use cases and alternative tools.

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios (tracking AI capex events, capacity announcements, competitive intel) and when-not-to-use with named alternatives (list_transactions for historical M&A, deal_autopsy for single-deal teardown).

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