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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: auto-accepts proposer's side, creates binding consent, and enables one-tap confirm. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Concise and front-loaded. Each sentence adds unique value. Could be slightly better organized but is efficient.

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 core behavior and linkage to accept_deal, but lacks details on return format, validation rules (e.g., splits sum), and optional fields like notes. Adequate for a common-sense tool but not exhaustive.

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?

Explains parameter mapping for the two kinds (community_standing vs event_coproduction) but omits details like community_attach_cap_pct and share_value semantics. With 0% schema coverage, more thorough explanation is needed.

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 the tool records agreed ticket-split terms as a deal proposal. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that confirmations go through accept_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?

Indicates when to use (recording an already reached agreement) and references accept_deal for the other side's confirmation. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but provides solid guidance.

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