Get deal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'Get' implies a safe read. It adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing that the response aggregates company, contact, and activity history in one call, but it says nothing about permissions, error/not-found behavior, or freshness of the attached history.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the operation and appends the useful return payload. No filler or redundancy.

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 trivial one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back, but with no annotations and no parameter documentation it leaves the meaning of dealId and failure behavior unstated.

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 single dealId parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not: it never explains that dealId identifies which deal, its expected type, or where an agent would obtain it. 'a deal's details' is the only hint.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a deal's details') and even discloses the related entities returned (company, contact, activity history). This distinguishes it from list_deals at a glance, though it doesn't name the sibling getters (get_company, get_contact) it parallels.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_deals, search_crm, or get_pipeline_summary, and no stated preconditions for retrieving a deal. Usage is only implied by the getter naming convention.

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