get_deal_advisers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation by stating it 'Shows' and 'Includes' data. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information without 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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (adviser roles, deal details, amounts, types, dates). It gives a complete picture of the tool's functionality and output.

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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by listing example roles ('legal_issuer, underwriter, lead_manager...') and deal types ('capital_raise' or 'takeover'), providing context beyond the schema's dictionary-like descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves professional advisers for capital raises and takeovers for NZX companies, specifying types of advisers (law firms, investment banks, valuers) and roles (legal counsel, underwriter, etc.). It also notes that deal details are included, making it distinct from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like capital raises alone or takeovers alone.

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 explicit use cases: 'deal intelligence, adviser league tables, or capital markets analysis'. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternative sibling tools (e.g., get_capital_raises, get_takeovers) that might be more appropriate for other contexts.

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