get_deal

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It indicates a read operation ('retrieve') but does not disclose behaviors such as error handling (e.g., 404 if not found), idempotency, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Minimal behavioral context is provided.

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 extremely concise—only 5 lines—with a clear front-loaded purpose statement followed by parameter and return documentation. Every sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and has an output schema, so return value details are covered by schema. However, it lacks information on edge cases (e.g., missing deal), response error handling, and usage in conjunction with siblings. For a basic get tool, it meets minimum viability but could be more comprehensive.

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 only parameter, deal_id, is described in an Args section as 'The numeric id of the deal.' While the schema already specifies integer type, the description adds clarity about its role and that it is numeric. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully documents the parameter's meaning, adding value beyond the schema.

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 ('retrieve'), the resource ('deal'), and the scope ('single', 'full details'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_deals (multiple deals) and search_contacts (different resource).

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 use when needing full details of a single deal, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for multiple deals, use list_deals) or alternatives among siblings. No exclusion or prerequisite information is provided.

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