Get Deals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context at all: nothing about pagination limits, total counts, default result set, or what happens when filters are combined. For a 7-param listing endpoint, that is a missed opportunity.

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?

It is very short, which is good, but the first two lines are pure redundancy ('Get Deals' / 'Returns a list of deals'), so only the third sentence carries information. The content is front-loaded but thin rather than efficient.

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 7-parameter listing tool with no output schema and many sibling deal-listing tools, the description should clarify scope, pagination behavior, and sibling routing. Instead it leaves the overlap with list_deals_by_contact and search_deals unexplained, so an agent cannot reliably pick the right tool from the description alone.

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 each parameter documented including defaults, ranges, and enum meanings, so the schema alone carries the semantics and baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the vague phrase 'flexible filtering and sorting'.

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 says 'Get Deals. Returns a list of deals', which mostly restates the name and title rather than defining scope. It never explains how this differs from the several sibling tools that also return deals (list_deals_by_contact, find_deals_by_email, search_deals, get_deal), even though the schema's contactId filter overlaps list_deals_by_contact.

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?

'For more flexible filtering and sorting, use POST /v1/deal/search' names one alternative and implies this tool is for basic paged listing. But it does not say when this tool is preferred, nor does it mention the other deal-listing siblings that an agent must choose between.

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