get_deal_reason

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool 'refuses if empty' and returns the reason 'verbatim', which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not explicitly state read-only status, permission requirements, or error handling for invalid account_name/viewer, leaving gaps.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences plus an Args list—and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. The structure is clean and immediately scannable.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the main behavior, parameter meanings, and an important edge case (empty refusal). It lacks broader usage context or explicit safety statement, but for a simple read tool, it is largely 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 Args section adds meaning beyond the bare schema: account_name is described as 'The account to look up' and viewer as 'LEADERSHIP or a rep_id. Required.' This compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage and clarifies the expected format for viewer. The descriptions are concise but valuable.

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 identifies the resource (stored loss_reason) and scope (one account), and the tool name includes 'get'. It differs from sibling tools by focusing on a specific deal/account reason rather than segment attainment, reps at risk, pipeline value, or supported questions. It lacks an explicit verb, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 usage via 'for one account' and 'Refuses if empty', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. It offers only implied context, so it meets the 'implied usage' level.

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