rdstation_list_deals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'List deals' conveys a read operation but does not mention pagination behavior, sorting, filtering, returned data shape, or authentication expectations. The description is not misleading, but it is too sparse to be behaviorally transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and system without filler. The Portuguese gloss 'negócios' adds helpful localization context without bloating the text. There is no wasted wording.

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 simple paginated list operation with optional parameters fully covered by the schema, the description plus schema is nearly complete. The only notable gap is the absence of an output schema or any description of the response shape, but this is a minor issue for selecting and invoking the 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with clear descriptions: page number starting at 1 and results per page. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter detail, and it does not. This matches the baseline expectation of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('deals'), and a system ('RD Station CRM'), which makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling list tools for contacts, organizations, pipelines, and stages. However, it does not explicitly state scope such as 'all deals' or clarify that this is a paginated listing, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rdstation_get_deal for a single deal or the other list_* siblings. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or a suggested selection path. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and generic context.

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