pipedrive_deals_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose return behavior beyond the schema ('matching deals with relevance scoring'), which is useful, and the verb 'search/returns' implies a safe read. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or pagination semantics (cursor handling), which the schema only partially covers.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the tool's 9-parameter surface.

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 9-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is only partially complete: it gestures at the return shape (relevance-scored matches) but omits pagination behavior and any hint that filtering by status/person/organization is supported. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% across all 9 parameters, so the schema already documents term, limit, cursor, fields, status, person_id, exact_match, include_fields, and organization_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (deals) plus the search mode ('by term'), so the agent knows this is keyword search rather than a full listing. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as pipedrive_deals_list, pipedrive_deals_get, or pipedrive_deals_summary, so sibling disambiguation is left to inference.

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 phrase 'Search deals by term' implies usage (use when you have a keyword to match), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many deal siblings. An agent must guess between this and deals_list/deals_get for retrieval tasks.

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