analyze_deal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must reveal behavioral traits. It indicates returns are computed (cap rate, IRR, etc.), implying no side effects, but it does not explicitly state that no data is modified or that the operation is read-only. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 very concise: two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then usage. No unnecessary words or fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description lists key return metrics (cap rate, cash-on-cash, etc.) and states 'full financial projections'. It covers the essential information but could be more specific about the projection format or depth.

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 context about outputs but does not enhance parameter meaning. The schema descriptions are clear, so no additional benefit from the description.

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 it analyzes multifamily deals and lists specific return metrics. It also gives usage context, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like market_data or reverse_calc, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when someone asks about analyzing a property, evaluating a deal, or running the numbers'. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use or alternatives.

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