get_deal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the HTTP method GET, signaling a read-only operation, but it does not describe the return payload, potential errors, permissions, or rate limits. That is minimal but adequate for a simple fetch-by-id tool.

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 concise sentence with the endpoint included. It has no filler and front-loads the core behavior immediately.

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 straightforward by-id retrieval with no output schema, stating the endpoint and required id is sufficient for invocation. It does not explain response fields, but that is not strictly necessary for a GET-by-id operation. The context is complete enough in context of its 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 coverage is 50%; the id parameter itself has no schema description, so 'by id' at least connects it to the deal resource. The extraQuery parameter is already well documented in the schema, and the description adds no further parameter meaning. This is adequate but not enriching.

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 states the exact operation: retrieve a single deal by id, and includes the endpoint GET /deals/{id}. This is clear, specific, and easily distinguished from list_deals (listing a collection) and update_deal (a mutation).

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 'by id' implies this is the correct tool when a deal identifier is already known, as opposed to searching or filtering via list_deals. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives, so it relies on inference.

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