list_deals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions ordering by amount and optional filtering, but does not disclose pagination behavior, whether the ordering is ascending or descending, what fields are returned, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a list tool with no annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and key modifiers (filter by stage, ordered by amount). It is concise and readable, though it embeds the arguments JSON in the description string, which is redundant with the input schema and slightly clutters the text.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably documented there. However, with no annotations, no parameter descriptions in the schema, and no mention of pagination or ordering direction, the description leaves some operational details unclear. It is adequate for a simple list tool but not fully complete.

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 0%, and the input schema only wraps an 'arguments' object with additionalProperties allowed, providing no parameter-level documentation. The description does add meaning for 'stage' (filter by pipeline stage) and 'limit' (implied by the schema's default/max/min but not described in text), but it does not fully compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions. The description names the filter and ordering but leaves the limit parameter's semantics to the schema's numeric constraints.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('deals'), and adds two specific behaviors: optional filtering by pipeline stage and ordering by amount. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_deal or pipeline_summary, but the resource and filter/order semantics make the core purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: when you need a list of deals with optional stage filtering and amount ordering. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_deal for a single deal or pipeline_summary for aggregate pipeline data. The context is clear enough for basic selection but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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