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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: visibility limited to the two participants. It also enumerates the return fields, giving useful context. It doesn't mention error behavior or side effects, but as a read-only 'fetch' operation, this is adequate.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core action, then efficiently lists return fields and a key constraint. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete by naming return fields and the visibility limitation. It doesn't explain error cases or how to obtain the negotiation_id, but covers the essential usage context for a basic getter.

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 0% and the description does not explain the required `negotiation_id` parameter beyond the name. It implies the parameter identifies a negotiation but gives no format, how to obtain it, or prerequisites. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Fetches') and resource ('negotiation term sheet'), listing the exact fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling deal_* tools like deal_open or deal_accept_terms, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (when needing current state of a negotiation) but provides no explicit when-not or alternative references. It notes an access restriction but doesn't guide toward related tools like deal_list for finding negotiation IDs.

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