get_deal_score

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states 'Get score values,' implying a read operation but fails to disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output behavior beyond the generic term 'values.'

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 sentence of 12 words, efficiently stating the core purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the main output concepts (win probability, deal quality) but does not elaborate on the output schema or provide any operational context (e.g., error handling, response structure).

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?

The input schema has one parameter (deal_id) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema: it does not explain what deal_id represents, its format, or how to obtain it. The parameter semantics are left entirely to the structured 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 clearly states the tool retrieves score values for a deal and specifies them as win probability and deal quality metrics. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_deal or get_contact_score.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_deal or get_contact_score. The description is bare and offers no contextual hints about prerequisites or scenarios.

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