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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description discloses substantial behavior: changes go back to the business as their request, price negotiation only applies where get_business_profile says price_negotiable, otherwise the input routes as a person's message, is never refused, passed_on after a few rounds, and what was proposed or agreed still stands.

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 dense paragraph with em dashes and nested conditionals that is difficult to parse. Most clauses carry relevant information, but the structure is not cleanly front-loaded and could be tightened substantially.

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 complex 9-parameter negotiation tool with no output schema, the description covers negotiation paths, fallback-to-message behavior, and outcome persistence ('what the business proposed, or what was agreed, still stands'). The schema handles identity, pass, and idempotency details; exact response and error shapes are not described but are less critical here.

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?

With 89% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds scenario-specific meaning: start_time is a free check_availability slot for bookings versus the requested time for quotes; lines index into offer.terms.lines for order-change offers but the order's orderedItem on confirmed/accepted items; total_price and unit_price apply only where the business profile says price_negotiable.

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 opening phrase 'Answer what the business proposed with only what your person would change' names a counter-offer action, and subsequent clauses enumerate start_time, lines, delivery_when, quantity, and price changes. It distinguishes offer responses from changes on confirmed bookings or accepted orders, though the run-on phrasing prevents a crisp verb+resource statement.

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?

It establishes the context of responding to a business proposal with changes and details what conditions route a price into negotiation versus a message. However, it never explicitly contrasts make_offer with accept_offer or decline_offer, nor states when not to use this tool.

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