get_deal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb '取得' (retrieve) clearly indicates a read-only operation, which is the most important behavioral trait. However, the description does not disclose what exactly is returned, how errors are signaled, or any other behavioral nuances; this is acceptable for a simple getter but not richly transparent.

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 is front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 two-parameter getter with fully documented parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. It clearly indicates that deal details will be retrieved, though it does not explicitly state the return format or why company_id is needed. Since there is no output schema, a tiny bit more detail about the response could be helpful, but it remains adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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%: deal_id is described as '取引ID' and company_id as '事業所ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 '取引の詳細を取得' clearly states a specific verb (get) and resource (deal details). It is unambiguous and semantically distinguishes this tool from list_deals (which lists deals) and create_deal (which creates a deal).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_deals or get_company. There is no mention of the condition that a specific deal_id is needed, nor any exclusion of cases where list_deals would be more appropriate.

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