get_deals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that this is a read-style 'list' operation, but it does not mention response format, pagination, authentication requirements, side effects, or any limits. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose: retrieving a list of orders. There is no filler or redundant wording, so every part earns its place.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is too thin to be fully actionable. It explains what the tool returns conceptually but not how the result is shaped, whether the filters combine, or what operational constraints apply. Low parameter complexity helps, but the lack of contextual detail remains a clear gap.

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 100%, so all three parameters already have meaningful descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which matches the baseline of 3; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Получение списка заказов (сделок) GetCourse' (getting a list of orders/deals). This is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tools get_users and create_user.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about prerequisites, and no explicit use-case framing. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'list of orders', but no practical selection guidance is provided.

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