get_deal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the context that the data is 'cached', which signals potential staleness, but it does not disclose error behavior, authentication, or rate limits. This provides some transparency but leaves significant gaps.

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 that communicates the tool's purpose without superfluous words. 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 getter with one well-documented parameter, the description adequately conveys the core function and the cached nature of the data. It doesn't describe the return structure, but the phrase 'complete cached topic data' provides reasonable expectation. Given the lack of an output schema, a 4 is warranted rather than 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 already documents topic_id as a RedFlagDeals topic ID with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the complete cached topic data for a RedFlagDeals deal'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_deals (searching) and monitor tools (monitoring).

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 for retrieving a specific deal's data by topic ID, which is distinct from searching or monitoring. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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