Get deal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response aggregates requirement, status history, verification checks and payout record, which is useful context about the shape of the read. It says nothing about authorization needs, missing-deal behavior, or payload size.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists the returned components with no filler. It is a noun fragment rather than a sentence, but no words are wasted and the most important content leads.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does list the four payload sections. However, it omits identifier usage, error behavior when a deal is not found, and any relationship to sibling write tools.

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 never mentions deal_id or its required 'deal_xxxxxxxxxx' format. With one parameter and no schema-level documentation, the description is the only place this could be clarified and it does not, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names the resource (a full deal) and enumerates what the payload contains: requirement, status history, verification checks and payout record. That is a specific verb+resource statement an agent can act on. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling list_deals, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_deals, or versus the sibling tools verify_deal_post, record_payout and cancel_deal. The agent must infer that 'Full deal' means the single-deal counterpart to list_deals, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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