List RD Station CRM Deals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: default status 'open', sorting by most recent first, and that it returns one line per deal. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior or field/return format beyond the return summary.

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 short, information-dense blocks: filters+sorting, return format summary, and usage examples. Compact and well-structured. Minor redundancy: the default status 'open' appears twice (in the filter sentence and in examples), but overall clean and front-loaded.

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?

With zero required params, an openWorld read tool, and a 100%-covered schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers filters, defaults, sorting, return format, and when to use. The only gap is no explicit depth on pagination limits beyond what the schema provides, but this is minor.

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% — every one of the 9 parameters has a clear schema description. The tool description adds a default ('open') reiterated in the schema, and the date-format (YYYY-MM-DD) that matches the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('List deals') with clear filters enumerated (status, pipeline, stage, owner, name, date range) and sorting behavior. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly pointing to rdcrm_get_deal for full details and highlighting this is the list operation.

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 when-to-use examples ('what deals are open?', 'deals lost this month', 'show João's pipeline'). It distinguishes from rdcrm_get_deal (full details) but doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like rdcrm_pipeline_overview, so it misses the 'when not to use' dimension.

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