get_deal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' clearly implies a read operation and 'with all fields' indicates the response scope, but the description does not mention error behavior, missing-ID handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple fetch tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. The core action, resource type, identifier method, and field scope are all front-loaded and immediately parseable by an agent.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity—one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects—the description covers the essentials: what it fetches and what is returned. It could additionally mention behavior for non-existent deals, but the current description is largely complete for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 schema already fully documents the only parameter with 'Deal ID to retrieve', and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond confirming that the tool operates by deal ID, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 operation ('Get'), the specific resource ('a single CRM deal'), and the identifier ('by ID'). It also specifies the return scope ('all fields'), which distinguishes it from list_deals and other deal operations.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need one specific deal by its ID rather than a list or a mutation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the single-vs-list distinction is evident from the wording and sibling tool names.

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