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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavior: the negotiation stays on record and cannot be added to. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, or what happens to existing data or pending actions. It gives partial transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, delivering the core action and a key consequence without waste.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits details like what room_id refers to, any prerequisites, or the nature of the result. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 50% (room_id lacks description). The description does not explain any parameters, so the required room_id is left undocumented beyond the schema. The description adds no meaning to the parameters, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'End a negotiation without a deal' which specifies the action (end), the resource (negotiation), and the condition (without a deal). It also distinguishes from siblings like negotiation_approve which likely ends with a deal. The additional note about staying on record and no more additions clarifies the scope.

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 (when no deal is reached) but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention the existence of other negotiation tools, leaving the agent to infer from the 'without a deal' phrase.

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