ingrammicro_get_deal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only and idempotent nature is covered. The description adds only return-content context (covered products/vendors), not behavioral traits such as error behavior or auth requirements. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 that quickly states the operation and its key output. There is no wasted wording, and the most important information ('get full detail for one deal') appears first.

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?

With one well-described required parameter, a read-only/idempotent annotation profile, and an output schema available, this description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. The only missing context is how to discover a deal_id, but that is the job of sibling search tools and not essential for this get-by-id 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?

The schema has 100% coverage: deal_id is described as 'Ingram Micro's unique deal id.' The description adds no further meaning about how to use or format the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies where the schema already documents it.

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 operation ('Get full detail'), the resource ('one special-pricing deal'), and a key aspect of the result ('which products/vendors it covers'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like ingrammicro_search_deals, relying on the reader to infer that a 'detail' endpoint for a single deal is distinct from a search endpoint.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ingrammicro_search_deals. The description does not mention that this tool is intended for retrieving details after finding a deal, nor does it provide any prerequisites for obtaining a deal_id.

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