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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the auth model is a buyer token rather than an account credential, and a wrong token returns the same 'not found' as a missing negotiation — a security detail that stops an agent from fruitlessly retrying with different tokens. It also clarifies that no credential is needed at the platform level.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the return contents, then the auth requirement. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the required-id/token sentence partly restates what the schema already marks as required.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields. Auth requirements and the not-found ambiguity are covered, so an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret a failure.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (including the seller handle, which the description never mentions) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the nuance that buyer_token is the token the negotiation opened with rather than an account token, which is useful but marginal.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read your own negotiation with a seller') and enumerates exactly what is returned: status, rounds used and left, standing counter, agreed price, history. It is clearly the single-record read versus the sibling list_negotiations, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives clear prerequisites: you need the negotiation id and the buyer token the negotiation opened with, explicitly 'not an account'. It stops short of routing the agent to list_negotiations when it has no id, so the alternative path is left implicit.

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