view_deal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'View' implies a read-only lookup, but the description says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown/missing deal_id, permission requirements, or what 'detailed information' actually encompasses.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding or redundancy. It is efficiently sized for a simple lookup tool, though the terseness contributes to the gaps noted elsewhere.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema the agent has no idea what fields 'detailed information' returns, and the description does nothing to compensate for that missing return-shape information.

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% for the single deal_id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance (e.g., where to obtain the ID), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('View') and resource ('deal'), so an agent immediately knows this retrieves one deal. However, it offers no differentiation from the closely related siblings search_deals and list_deals, leaving the boundary between them to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never explains that this is the single-record counterpart to search_deals/list_deals, nor does it state any prerequisite such as having obtained a deal_id first.

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