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 only says 'get a list' and does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, ordering, response shape, or whether the list includes both income and expense unless filtered. This is minimal coverage for a list operation with eight parameters.

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, and the core action and resource are front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it omits useful context; this is more under-specification than ideal conciseness, but it is still clean and scannable.

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 eight parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a one-line description. It does not explain return value structure, filtering semantics, pagination, or how this list relates to the many sibling list tools. The schema covers parameters, but the overall description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool correctly in context.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'income/expense' lightly reinforces the type parameter but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that this tool retrieves a list of deals (income/expense), which identifies the resource and the list operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_deal, but the list vs. single-record distinction is implicit and reasonably clear.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_invoices, list_expense_applications, or get_deal. The available filter parameters in the schema imply common use cases, but the description itself offers no context, exclusions, or alternatives.

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