get_manager_negotiations_statistics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HH_ACCESS_TOKEN requirement but does not describe the returned statistics, whether the result is a compact summary or raw JSON (aside from the schema's 'raw' parameter), or any error/edge-case behavior. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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?

The description is short and gets to the point in two sentences. The 'Requires HH_ACCESS_TOKEN' note is useful, though it repeats an authentication requirement rather than explaining the tool's behavior.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the caller receives and any important behaviors. It only identifies the resource and authentication requirement, leaving the return format, statistics scope, and failure modes unexplained. This is incomplete for a tool with similar siblings and no structured output metadata.

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 input schema already documents employer_id, manager_id, and raw. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable but not value-adding.

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 states a specific action ('Get negotiations statistics') and a specific resource ('for a manager'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from the similarly named sibling 'get_negotiations_statistics', so the purpose is clear but the boundary between the two is not.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_negotiations_statistics' or 'get_preferred_negotiations_order'. The only contextual hint is 'for a manager', which implies a scope but does not explicitly address when to choose this tool.

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