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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: a new offer replaces the current one, totals are computed, sent content persists ('kept for good'), the other side reads it, and messages are screened for wording that instructs the other agent. It could add auth or error behavior, but the core side effects are transparent.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Each behavioral detail earns its place, though 'We work out the total' is slightly redundant with the schema's note about Focxle calculating the total. Overall tight and readable.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the important behavioral guarantees: offer replacement, persistence, visibility to the other side, and message screening. It doesn't explicitly describe return values, confirmation, or error cases, but for a send action with a well-documented schema this is a reasonably complete picture.

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 schema already documents room_id, message, and every field of the nested offer object. The description adds context about offer replacement and total calculation but does not materially clarify individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Send an offer, a counter-offer or a message in a negotiation.' It also clarifies the immediate effect ('A new offer replaces the one on the table'), which distinguishes it clearly from the sibling negotiation_* tools like get, close, approve, and list. Even without naming a sibling, an agent can tell what this tool is for.

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 intended use is implied by the first sentence: use this tool when you need to send something in a negotiation. However, there is no explicit 'when not to use' or routing to alternatives such as negotiation_get for reading or negotiation_approve for accepting. This is adequate but leaves guidance to inference.

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