qobrix_deals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses defaults, overridability, sorting behavior, field resolution, and the in-process nature of sorting. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but that is implied for a query tool. It also omits details about pagination or return format, but the examples imply a list of deals.

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 long but packed with valuable information: purpose, defaults, overridable parameters, and seven distinct example uses. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and defaults, then examples. While it could be formatted more cleanly (e.g., bullet points), every sentence earns its place.

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 complex 19-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers defaults, parameter relationships, sorting, field resolution, and provides realistic usage scenarios. It does not explain the return structure, but the examples and schema descriptions cover the essentials. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or how the top parameter interacts with the summary block, but that is in the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining how kind sets contract_types defaults, default date_field behavior, and the effect of include_reserved. The examples demonstrate how parameters combine for real use cases, adding value beyond the schema.

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 flexible 'deals' tool over the Contracts table covering sales, rentals, listing agreements, and pipeline reservations in a single call. It provides multiple example uses that illustrate its scope and differentiates it from sibling tools like list/search by emphasizing its aggregate/filtering capabilities and ability to resolve fields.

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 gives explicit default behavior (kind='sale', contract_statuses=['agreed']) and a wide range of usage examples (best 2026 closed sales, rentals, pipeline, my deals, revenue >€1M, leaderboard). It even names an alternative approach for a single page of highest prices using list/search with sort='-final_selling_price_amount', providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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