list_deals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly discloses the dependency on list_views to supply view_id, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about pagination defaults, result caps, or how sorting interacts with the saved view's own filters.

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, zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the prerequisite call. 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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical prerequisite but leaves pagination and sort semantics unexplained, which an agent may need to iterate results correctly.

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 coverage is only 40%, and the description compensates for view_id by naming its source tool and giving example values. However, page, per_page, sort, and sort_type remain undocumented in both places, so the compensation is partial.

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 states a specific verb+resource ("List deals") and adds a scope qualifier ("from a saved view"), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_deals, which is the main gap keeping it below a 5.

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 a concrete prerequisite workflow: call list_views(module="deals") first to obtain the required view_id, even citing example view names. What is missing is guidance on when to prefer this tool over search_deals.

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