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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not clarify if the tool actually submits the move or merely advises. It mentions returning a move and message, which suggests advisory, but lacks explicit side-effect disclosure. The 'no additional charge' remark is helpful but insufficient.

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 sentences that front-load purpose and provide key instructions and return details. Every word earns its place; 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 5 parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and return structure. However, it omits error conditions, prerequisites (beyond session_open), and the advisory vs. execution nature, leaving some gaps.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by emphasizing 'FULL offer history' and 'oldest first' for 'their_offers' and optionally 'my_offers'. This provides usage nuance beyond the schema, but does not cover optional parameters like 'rounds_left'.

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 title and description clearly indicate this tool computes the next move in a single-issue session. The phrase 'next single-price offer' and 'Your next move' are specific. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'computes' or 'returns', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 states to pass the full offer history each time, oldest first, and notes no additional charge. It distinguishes itself from bundle negotiation by specifying 'single-issue'. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention when not to use it.

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