list_deals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the scope ('current user's deals') but omits details about return format, pagination, sorting defaults, or any side effects. The operation appears read-only but this is not explicitly stated, and no info about rate limits or authentication is given.

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 succinct and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by an Args block. Every word contributes value, with no filler or redundant repetition of schema defaults. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 is a straightforward list operation with an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers the essentials. The main gap is the lack of usage guidelines (captured in dimension 2), but for the simple use case, the description is otherwise complete. It could mention default sort order or pagination behavior, but those are partially covered by schema defaults.

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 description fully explains both parameters beyond the empty schema. 'sort' is clarified with a format example ('name:asc'), and 'limit' is defined as 'Max deals to return.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this is the only source of meaning and it handles both parameters clearly.

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's purpose: 'List all of the current user's deals.' This uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('deals') with an explicit scope ('current user's'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_contacts or list_notes.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_pipeline_deals_by_stage or get_won_deals_last_month. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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