score_deal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'returns the DFP Score and key metrics' but does not clarify if the operation is read-only, whether it modifies data, or any prerequisites like authentication. The description lacks essential behavioral context beyond its input/output.

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 concise: two sentences front-loading the core purpose and key differentiator. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's primary use case.

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 the tool has 5 parameters fully described in the schema, no output schema, and sibling tools providing context, the description covers the main purpose and distinction. However, it omits the structure of the returned 'key metrics' and does not address potential edge cases or error states, leaving slight gaps for a comprehensive understanding.

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%, meaning each parameter is already described in the input schema. The description does not add further meaning to parameters (e.g., expected ranges, units clarification) beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting; the description adds no additional parameter insight.

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 action ('quick-score'), the resource ('multifamily deal'), and the scale ('DFP 0-100'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it's 'faster than full analysis' and intended for 'quick screening', setting it apart from more detailed analysis tools like analyze_deal.

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 explicitly notes when to use the tool ('for quick screening') and implies an alternative ('full analysis'), but does not name the alternative tool (analyze_deal) or provide explicit criteria for when not to use it. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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