deals_get

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

No annotations provided, so description covers behavioral traits: mentions response includes person, organization, pipeline, and stage information, and that data is cached for 5 minutes. This adds useful context beyond the schema.

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?

Well-structured with separate sections for description, workflow tips, and common use cases. Information is front-loaded and concise, though could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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?

Given low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers return content and caching behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect, though error handling or rate limits are not mentioned, which is acceptable for this type of retrieval tool.

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 for the single parameter 'id' already states 'ID of the deal to retrieve'. The description includes an example use case 'Get deal details: { "id": 123 }', adding minor value. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific deal by ID' and distinguishes from sibling tools like deals_list and deals_search. The description also mentions inclusion of custom fields, reinforcing the purpose.

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?

Provides workflow tips, such as using deals/search or deals/list to find deal IDs first. Common use cases are listed (e.g., check deal status, retrieve for analysis), giving practical context. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the tips guide appropriate usage.

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