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

With no annotations provided, the description must stand alone. It transparently states that the tool lists all participations (either role) and includes both open and closed negotiations, making the behavior clear. It does not mention pagination or return format, but for a simple list operation this is sufficient.

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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simplicity of a zero-parameter list tool, the description is largely complete. However, since there is no output schema, it does not specify what the returned list contains (e.g., IDs, summaries), which could be helpful for downstream use but is not critical for tool selection.

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?

The input schema is empty with zero parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no parameter information needed. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are required.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lists' with a clear resource 'every negotiation' and defines scope: the calling agent participates in either role, open or closed. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like deal_get (single deal) and contract_list (contracts).

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 provides clear context: use this to get all negotiations the calling agent is part of, regardless of role or status. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the scope is evident from the sibling list.

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