volkern_get_deal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'gets' information without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a CRM system.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get detailed information') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the resource and scope, making it appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (likely a CRM deal lookup), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, return format, error cases, or authentication needs, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and clearly documents the 'dealId' parameter. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't provide extra context like ID format examples or sourcing tips.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific deal'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'volkern_list_deals' or 'volkern_update_deal', which would require mentioning it's for retrieving a single deal's details rather than listing or modifying.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a deal ID), contrast with 'volkern_list_deals' for multiple deals, or specify scenarios like viewing deal status versus updating it with 'volkern_update_deal'.

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