get_true_os_deals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation (取得する), describes the returned data scope (contract amount, status, phase), and specifies filtering behavior. It does not mention potential rate limits or authentication, but for a simple read/list tool, this level of disclosure is adequate.

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: one introductory paragraph stating purpose and scope, followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 the tool has 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, return content, and filter options. It omits details like return format or error handling, but for a straightforward list retrieval tool with no annotations, it is reasonably complete. The distinction from get_projects_with_deals further enriches context.

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%, so the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters in an Args section. It provides allowed values for status and phase, and defaults for product and phase, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 explicitly states it retrieves a list of all deals (ディール一覧) from TRUE OS Gateway, using the verb '取得する' and clearly defines the resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it retrieves deals regardless of project association, setting it apart from get_projects_with_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 provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving all deals without project linkage, and mentions available filters (status, product, phase). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for project-specific deals, but the sibling name get_projects_with_deals implies that use case. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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