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

Annotations already convey that this is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds little beyond that. It mentions optional linking but does not disclose permission requirements, side effects, or default behaviors, leaving gaps in transparency.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object, and contains no unnecessary words. It is direct and efficient.

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 description is very brief for a tool with 10 parameters, although an output schema exists. It does not mention prerequisites, default stages, or constraints, so it is adequate but not fully complete for complex scenarios.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description's mention of optional linking adds slight context but does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics beyond what is already available.

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 a specific verb ('create') and resource ('CRM sales pipeline deal'), and adds optional linking to customer account and contact, which distinguishes it from siblings like update_deal and delete_deal.

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 use for creating a new deal but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Without guidance on when to prefer this over related tools, the usage context is inferred but not stated.

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