bitrix24_crm_deal_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation but does not disclose error handling (e.g., behavior for invalid ID), required permissions, or response structure. While it is functional, it lacks detail beyond the basic action.

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, well-constructed sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning full marks.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not specify the return value (e.g., deal object fields) or potential errors, leaving some context gaps. A mention of the response would improve completeness.

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 covers 100% of parameters and describes 'dealId' as 'Deal ID'. The description adds no further semantic value—it merely echoes the schema. Since schema coverage is high, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'get', the resource 'CRM deal', and the qualifier 'by ID'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like bitrix24_crm_deal_list, which deals with listing 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 that this tool should be used when you have a specific deal ID and need a single record. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., list, update) provides sufficient differentiation.

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