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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the two different outcomes (close thread vs keep active). Annotations only give basic hints, but description could disclose more side effects (e.g., notifications).

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, front-loaded with action and key distinctions. No wasted words.

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?

Covers main behaviors and scenarios. Lacks details on return values, error handling, or prerequisites beyond deal_id. Adequate for typical use given moderate complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It mentions 'optional reason' but does not explain its purpose or usage. The required 'deal_id' is already in schema, adding no new meaning.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Decline' and resource 'deal's pending terms', and distinguishes two scenarios (first-proposal vs renegotiation), which clearly differentiates from siblings like 'accept_deal' and 'end_deal'.

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?

Provides context on when to use: first-proposal declines close thread, renegotiation keeps deal active. However, no explicit exclusions or alternatives like 'end_deal' for permanent termination.

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