get_negotiations_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authentication requirement (HH_ACCESS_TOKEN) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, rate limits, or what the statistics include. The sparse description leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary filler. It is concise but perhaps slightly too spare for a tool with no other documentation.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and only a bare description, an agent lacks information about what statistics are returned, the difference between summary and raw output, and potential error cases. The description is not complete enough to confidently invoke the tool and interpret results.

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% and both employer_id and raw have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('employer-level negotiations statistics'). The qualifier 'employer-level' distinguishes it from the sibling get_manager_negotiations_statistics, making the tool's purpose clear without opening its schema.

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 only provides a prerequisite ('Requires employer_id and HH_ACCESS_TOKEN') and no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or how to choose between this and get_manager_negotiations_statistics. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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