list_project_deals

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

The description does not contradict the readOnlyHint annotation, but it adds minimal behavioral detail beyond that. It doesn't mention rate limits, auth requirements, or side effects. The workflow context provides some sequencing behavior, but the core behavior (read-only list) is already captured by annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides the complete workflow. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary information.

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 complexity (simple list tool, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is mostly complete. It lacks explicit mention of the return format, but the workflow context and schema parameters provide enough context for an AI agent to use it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what is in the schema, maintaining the baseline of 3.

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 is 'STEP 2 of timesheet workflow: Get deals/budgets for a specific project,' using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('deals/budgets') with context ('for a specific project'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by embedding it in a workflow sequence.

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 explicitly lays out the full workflow: list_projects → list_project_deals → list_deal_services → list_project_tasks (recommended) → create_time_entry. This tells exactly when to use this tool (after step 1, before step 3) and implies when not to (if you already have deals or need tasks directly).

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