get_deal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the read-only retrieval action and the enriched payload (account, recent stage history), but it says nothing about not-found responses, invalid id handling, or authentication. It doesn't contradict any annotation, but the transparency is partial.

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?

Two compact segments – a purpose sentence and an inline JSON parameter spec – with no filler. The parameter spec is slightly awkward embedded in prose, but it is still efficient and front-loaded.

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 single-record getter with an output schema, the description covers the retrieval target and id format. It stops short of documenting error/not-found behavior and use-vs-sibling guidance, so it isn't fully complete.

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 formal schema only wraps a generic arguments object, so coverage is 0% and the description must compensate. It does so fully by providing deal_id's title, type, example ('deal_101'), and regex pattern, which is more than the input schema offers.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one deal by id,' and adds scope ('including its account and recent stage history'). The word 'one' and 'by id' differentiate it from list_deals/search_accounts, so an agent can tell it apart from the siblings.

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?

It implies the main use case – retrieving a specific deal when you know its id – but never names alternatives or states when not to use it (e.g., list_deals for all deals, update_deal_stage for changes). Usage must be inferred from the verb and resource.

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