ig_get_deal_confirmation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and identifier, but does not disclose that the timezone parameter affects the confirmation, what the confirmation contains, or how errors are handled. This is minimal disclosure beyond the obvious 'Get' semantics.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no redundance or filler, making it an appropriately sized description.

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 though an output schema exists, the description is incomplete because it does not explain the purpose of the required timezone parameter or provide any usage context. For a tool with two required parameters and no schema descriptions, this one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional guesswork.

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 mentions 'deal reference' but does not explain that it is a required identifier. It entirely omits the 'timezone' parameter, which is also required, and provides no format or usage context. Since the schema has zero description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter explanations.

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 the resource 'confirmation of a submitted deal', with a specific identifier 'deal reference'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_position or get_activity, which deal with other resources.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_activity or get_transactions. There is no mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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