get-deal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which covers safety traits. The description adds extra context by noting that custom fields are included in the response, which is beyond what annotations provide. This helps the agent understand the richness of the returned data.

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 with no fluff. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and a key feature (custom fields). Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the action, resource, and a notable aspect (custom fields). It does not describe the response format, but given the lack of output schema and the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable. A brief note on what the deal object contains would push it to a 5.

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 one parameter (dealId) with no description (0% coverage). The description's phrase 'by ID' clarifies the parameter's role, and the parameter name is self-explanatory. While the description does not explicitly restate the parameter details, the tool's simplicity makes this sufficient. However, it could be improved by confirming the expected integer format.

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 action (Get) and the resource (a Pipedrive deal by ID), and specifies that it includes generic custom fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get-deals' (plural) which likely lists deals, and 'search-deals' which searches. The verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you have a specific deal ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get-deals' or 'search-deals'. There are no exclusions or conditional guidance, which is a gap for an AI agent choosing among similar tools.

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