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 mentions the return includes a revenue summary (total, closed, pipeline), which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, ordering, auth requirements, or what happens with no deals. The disclosure is decent but not comprehensive for an unannotated tool.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The first states the core function, the second summarizes the return payload. Every word earns its place. Excellent front-loading of the primary action.

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 simple read/list tool with 3 well-documented parameters and no required params, the description adequately covers the purpose and return shape. It could mention pagination return behavior (does it return total count for pagination?), but given the schema covers limit/offset defaults, the description is reasonably complete for this complexity level.

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 all three parameters (limit, offset, status) are already documented in the schema. The description mentions the status filter but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema covers parameters, and the description doesn't add extra meaning like enums or special behavior.

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 'lists deals with optional status filter' and notes it returns a deals array plus revenue summary (total, closed, pipeline). The verb+resource+scope is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_pipeline, though the scope (deals list + summary) is distinctive enough.

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 implies this is the primary listing tool for deals (optional status filter), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like get_pipeline or move_deal_stage. The 'optional status filter' gives some context, but no explicit when-not or alternatives guidance is provided.

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