Get RD Station CRM Deal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by enumerating the specific fields returned (status, stage, value, owner, rating, dates, contacts with email/phone, products) which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe response format details like pagination, nested structures, or failure behavior, which with openWorldHint could matter. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('Get full details of one deal by ID') and efficiently enumerates the returned fields. Zero waste, 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 single-deal GET tool with one parameter (100% schema coverage), read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the key completeness elements: what it does, scope (one deal), and what fields you get back. It lacks a mention of error/not-found behavior, and the absence of an output schema means the field list in the description partially compensates. Given the low complexity, this is adequately complete.

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%, so the deal_id parameter is already documented in the schema with its own description. The description adds marginal value by noting deal_id comes from rdcrm_list_deals or rdcrm_get_contact, offering provenance context. There is only one parameter, and no enums or nested objects. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds modest extra context.

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 'Get full details of one deal by ID' with a specific verb ('get'), resource ('deal'), and identifier ('by ID'). It lists the exact fields returned (status, stage, value, owner, rating, dates, contacts, products), distinguishing it from sibling tools like rdcrm_list_deals which retrieves multiple deals.

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 clearly conveys this is for retrieving a single full deal by ID, which differentiates it from rdcrm_list_deals (multiple deals). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the singular 'one deal by ID' phrasing provides clear context. The deal_id param also references sourcing from rdcrm_list_deals or rdcrm_get_contact, giving useful workflow context.

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