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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the approval workflow, the required human handoff, the prohibition on self-approval, and the condition that the deal binds only when both sides' people approve. These are important behavioral constraints that an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with the core action and return value, followed by usage context and guardrails. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 available annotations and output schema, the description provides the key workflow guidance an agent needs: how to obtain the approval URL, what to do with it, and what not to do. No critical behavioral or usage information is missing.

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 the parameter meanings are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds contextual meaning around the deal and the person's approval page but does not provide additional parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: make the person's approval page for an agreed deal and get its approval_url. It also distinguishes the tool from market_make_offer and market_counter by explaining that the buyer's agent already received the link from those tools.

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 explicitly says when to call this tool: for a new link or when acting as the seller. It also states what to do next (send the URL to the person and wait) and gives clear exclusions (never open it yourself and never approve for the person).

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