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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context about the response contents (notes, tasks, linked contact/company), but does not disclose error behavior, auth requirements, or whether the returned data is fully hydrated. This is a reasonable but not deeply transparent description.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning: the operation, the resource, the id parameter, and the included related data.

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?

For a one-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the lookup key, and key return contents. It does not cover error handling or field formats, but those are less critical for a simple fetch operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'id' parameter. It only repeats that the tool fetches 'by id' without explaining the id format, source, or any constraints. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('a single deal by id') and names the included related entities ('notes, tasks, and the contact/company linked'). This distinguishes it from siblings like deals_list and deals_create without needing to inspect the schema.

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 phrase 'a single deal by id' implies the primary use case and contrasts with deals_list, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The usage guidance is present only by implication.

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