List deals

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the description only needs to add context — and it does, by disclosing that results are snapshots rather than live CRM reads and by stating the pagination cap of 500. It stops short of saying how stale a snapshot can be or what the default ordering is, which would matter for incremental syncing.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job — define the resource, enumerate filters and pagination, then route to the sibling. The identity of the resource is front-loaded before any parameter detail.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly. The only remaining gap is the shape of a returned deal snapshot (which fields, what ordering), which the description gestures at but does not specify and which no output schema supplies.

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%, so all five parameters already carry their own documentation including the ISO-date format, the 'normalized' stage values and the limit bounds. The description restates the same filters without adding syntax, accepted values, or interaction rules (e.g. how since combines with repId), so it is at the baseline.

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 pairs the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'deal snapshots' and defines that resource inline as 'latest CRM state per deal', so the agent knows exactly what a returned record represents. The clause 'discover deals without querying the CRM directly' further separates it from CRM-facing siblings and from get_commissions_dashboard.

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?

It states the use case (deal discovery from cached snapshots) and explicitly routes to get_commissions_dashboard when a per-deal commission breakdown is needed, which is a concrete alternative-plus-condition. It does not state any exclusions relative to siblings like list_reps or list_plans, but for a filtered list tool the routing guidance is sufficient.

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