mkt_deals

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful facts — the operation is read-only ('只读') and the backing source is DATA/deals.jsonl — but it says nothing about filtering behavior, pagination, record volume, or what the 'stuck objects' criterion actually is.

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 single clause is tightly written and front-loads the 'read-only' framing plus the data source. Brevity here edges into under-specification rather than wasteful verbosity, but nothing is padded.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum convey the shape of what comes back. The phrase '阶段、漏斗、卡住的对象' gestures at the returned content categories, which partially covers that gap, but the response format and the stage filter's effect remain undefined.

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% for the single optional 'stage' parameter, so the description must compensate. It mentions '阶段' but does not clarify whether stage acts as a filter, whether it matches exact values or substrings, or what happens when it is omitted; the word could equally describe an output dimension.

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 gives a resource area ('转化' / conversion) plus the kinds of content involved ('阶段、漏斗、卡住的对象'), and it says the tool is read-only. But it never states a verb such as list, summarize, or report, so it is unclear whether this returns raw deal records, an aggregation, or a filtered list. It also does not distinguish itself from the near-named sibling mkt_deal_next, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like mkt_deal_next, mkt_opportunity, and mkt_ledger_query in the set, the agent has no signal about which one to pick for conversion/funnel questions.

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