Test an offer against your rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms 'without recording anything', which is consistent. It also adds non-annotation domain behavior: the engine never goes below the floor and the floor is never surfaced in drafted text, valuable constraint context.

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 tight sentences, the what-if scope is front-loaded, and every clause adds information without repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description never says what the simulation returns (e.g., a counter amount or accept/reject), and two of four parameters are undocumented. The floor constraint helps but the picture is incomplete for a 4-param tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only echoes 'offer' and 'round' by name without format, range, or intent. 'listingId' and 'lastCounter' are left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a concrete action: run the negotiation engine for an offer/round as a what-if, with no recording. That cleanly separates it from mutating siblings like propose_deal or approve_deal, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 'What-if' framing implies this is a simulation to try before committing, which is useful context, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus propose_deal or deal_ledger, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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