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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the REST endpoint and filter/sort capabilities, which is useful but not extensive behavioral information (e.g., pagination, default sort). This matches the calibration example where annotation coverage lowers the bar; score 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with 'List deals', and every word adds value. The REST endpoint is a useful pointer. No padding or redundant restatement of the title.

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 is a straightforward list operation with many optional filters, all documented in the schema. The annotations cover read-only safety. No output schema exists, and the description does not explicitly describe the return shape, but the endpoint and name make it clear that a list of deals is returned. A small gap, so 4 rather than 5.

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 each of the 11 parameters is already self-documented. The description mentions filter/sort categories at a high level but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'List deals' with optional filters and sorting. It clearly distinguishes from sibling search tools by describing a listing operation with explicit filter dimensions. The REST endpoint adds precision.

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 provides clear context for use: listing deals with optional filters by owner, person, org, pipeline, stage, status, and sorting. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like search_deals, but the filter/sort language implies a list-all or filtered-list use case. No when-not-to-use guidance, so not a 5.

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