get_projects_with_deals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It adds useful context about the deal field's content and the meaning of null (no deal linked), which is beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose read-only status, pagination behavior, or potential performance implications, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 well-structured with an introductory sentence and a list of parameters, each earning its place. It is concise but informative, though the Args block adds a bit of length; no redundant content is present.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers essential return behavior: the combined project and deal data, what the deal field contains, and null handling. It also covers all parameters. It could be more explicit about default behaviors (e.g., null status meaning 'no filter'), but it is reasonably complete for a list-fetching 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 coverage is 0%, and the description's Args section provides meaning for all four parameters: status (filter by statuses), is_active (active only), skip (offset), and limit (max results). This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds clear semantics beyond parameter names and types.

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 a list of projects joined with TRUE OS deal information (contract amounts), specifying the exact resource and action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_project_list (projects without deal info) and get_true_os_deals (deals only) by the combination of projects and deals.

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 implies usage for projects with deal information but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention exclusions. It lacks direct guidance such as 'use get_project_list for projects without deal data' or 'use get_true_os_deals for deal-only queries.'

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