teamleader_get_deal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, idempotent, or what happens if the deal does not exist. It lacks any additional context such as permissions or rate limits.

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 one short sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. 'Detailed information' hints at the return value, but it does not explicitly describe the response structure or error scenarios. It is not comprehensive, but adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, which is described as 'The deal ID'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specific deal'), making it clear that this tool retrieves a single deal's details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_deals, create_deal, and update_deal by focusing on individual deal information.

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 phrase 'specific deal' implies the user already has a deal ID and wants detailed data, distinguishing it from listing or creating deals. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the context is clear enough.

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