get_deal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-world nature are covered. The description adds that the record is public and surfaces redeem_url and agent_instructions, which is useful content disclosure, but it says nothing about failure behavior for a bad id or what the undocumented "mode" parameter changes.

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?

A single sentence with the lookup key and the notable returned fields front-loaded; no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description does highlight the two most decision-relevant fields. But for a 2-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, the unexplained "mode" parameter and absent usage/error guidance leave real gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that "id" identifies a single deal, but the second parameter "mode" (default "full") is never mentioned and has no enum, leaving the agent unable to know what modes exist or what they alter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one deal's public record") and scopes it to a single item by id, which implicitly separates it from search_deals and compare_deals. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference from the singular "one deal by id" framing.

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?

"by id" implies the usage condition (you already have a deal identifier), which is enough to infer this is a direct-lookup tool rather than a discovery tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer search_deals/compare_deals, and no guidance on what to do if the id is unknown.

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