search_deals

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses it returns a JSON array of matching deals and searches across specific fields. As a search tool, it is implicitly read-only and non-destructive, which is adequately conveyed.

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 structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples) and front-loads the purpose. While it is slightly verbose with formal formatting, every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 absence of annotations and descriptions in the schema, the description fully covers purpose, parameters, return format, and usage examples. No gaps remain for a search tool of this complexity.

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 adds meaningful detail beyond the input schema: it explains that 'term' is the search term and 'limit' caps results (default 100), with examples showing usage. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensation is crucial and well-done.

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 performs full-text search across deals by term, specifying it searches deal titles, notes, and related content. This verb+resource combination precisely differentiates it from sibling tools like search_all and search_leads.

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 usage for searching deals and provides examples, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_organizations or search_persons. The sibling names indicate scope, satisfying a clear context for use.

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