Get loss reason

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

The description does not contradict the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It adds no additional behavioral context beyond the fact that it fetches a single loss reason, but the annotations already cover the safety profile. A neutral score is appropriate.

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?

One short sentence with no filler or redundant information. The description is extremely concise and easy to parse.

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-parameter read operation with readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description provides the essential information. It doesn't explicitly state return value/error behavior, but the simplicity of the tool makes this less critical.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'id' as 'Loss reason ID' with 100% coverage. The description's 'by ID' restates the schema without adding additional semantics, so a baseline of 3 is given.

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 action (get), the resource (loss reason), and the qualifier (by ID), which differentiates it from the sibling tool kommo_leads_loss_reasons_list that retrieves all loss reasons.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies this tool should be used when a specific loss reason ID is known, while the list sibling would be used otherwise. However, no explicit alternative is mentioned, leaving the guidance implicit.

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