deals_list_persons

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it returns full person details, supports pagination, and is cached for 5 minutes. This adds valuable context beyond the schema, though it could mention potential rate limits or data freshness.

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 well-structured with bullet points and sections, making it easy to scan. It is informative without being overly verbose, though the 'Workflow tips' and 'Common use cases' sections have some overlap.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (full person details) and includes caching behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively, though adding an explicit return structure would help.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds examples of usage for pagination parameters, which provides context but does not significantly extend beyond schema descriptions.

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 lists all persons associated with a deal, including primary contact and participants. It differentiates from the sibling tool 'deals_list_participants' by noting that participants are just person references, making the purpose distinct.

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 provides workflow tips and common use cases, such as pagination and retrieving contact information. It implicitly guides when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it. The differentiation from participants is a strong clue.

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