analyze_deal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It describes outputs but omits important traits like read-only nature, error handling, rate limits, or permission requirements. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects from the description alone.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, outputs, and usage scenarios. No superfluous text; front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview of outputs and usage but lacks details on output structure or assumptions behavior. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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% with detailed field descriptions (e.g., default for monthly_expenses). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for good schema coverage.

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 that the tool analyzes a multifamily real estate deal and lists specific financial returns (cap rate, cash-on-cash, DSCR, etc.). It provides usage context but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (market_data, reverse_calc, score_deal), though the use cases are implied.

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 gives clear usage scenarios ('when someone asks about analyzing a property, evaluating a deal, or running the numbers on a multifamily investment') but does not indicate when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools. Lacks comparative guidance for siblings.

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