create_deal

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 only states 'create' and gives no information about side effects, persistence, required permissions, return behavior, or any other operational traits.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, even though other dimensions handle the missing 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?

This is a create operation with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The one-line description lacks usage guidance, behavioral context, return-value expectations, and any differentiation from related creation tools, so it is not complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which keeps this at the baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource: it creates a transaction (取引) and clarifies the scope as income/expense. This makes the basic purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like create_invoice.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when creating an income or expense transaction. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer an alternative such as create_invoice.

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