teamleader_deal_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a read operation ('Get') with no side effects, but does not elaborate on return format, error behavior, or access requirements. For a simple get-by-ID, this is acceptable but not rich; there is no contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear read purpose) means the description covers the essential context. It does not explain return details, but for a get-by-ID tool, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the only parameter 'id' already described as 'Deal UUID'. The description's phrase 'by ID' is redundant with the schema and adds no new meaning beyond what structured data provides. Thus the baseline of 3 applies.

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' plus the specific resource 'details of a specific deal by ID'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like teamleader_deals_list (which lists deals) and teamleader_deal_update (which modifies deals), identifying a unique read-by-ID action.

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 context is clear: use when you need details for a specific deal identified by its ID. The description does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the singular focus on 'specific deal' implies appropriate usage, and sibling tools for other operations are not mentioned. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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