deal_confirmation

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool retrieves a confirmation, but does not disclose potential errors, response structure, or any side effects. This is minimal and does not assure the agent of safety or failure modes.

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, clear sentence with no redundant or filler words. It is compact, front-loaded, and easy to parse, making it an appropriately concise definition 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?

Even for a simple tool, the description lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral context. While an output schema is indicated, it is not provided in the visible context, so the description must cover more ground. The one-liner is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 zero description coverage for the 'deal_reference' parameter. The description adds only the word 'submitted', which hints at a requirement but does not explain the format, source, or validation of the reference. This is insufficient to fully understand the parameter.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'confirmation' for a submitted deal reference. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on orders, positions, or market data, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'submitted deal reference' implies it is for post-submission scenarios, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.

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