Propose a deal (pending approval)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the key behavioral fact annotations cannot convey: the write creates a non-binding PENDING state and acceptance requires a separate confirm:true call. It does not state reversibility, auth requirements, or whether re-proposing overwrites an existing pending deal.

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 with zero filler, front-loading the state semantics (PENDING APPROVAL) before the approval dependency. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The lifecycle and approval gating are well covered, but with six undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no detail on what an approval-gated proposal returns or how pending proposals are surfaced, the definition is only minimally adequate for the operation it describes.

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% across six parameters, so the description carries the full burden and mostly fails it: it gestures at 'price' and 'buyer' but never explains listingId, quantity, notes, or handoff. Four of six fields remain undocumented anywhere, so it only marginally compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb and resource: records an agreed price with a buyer into the deal ledger, and explicitly labels the resulting state as PENDING APPROVAL. It also names the sibling tool (approve_deal) that transitions the state, so an agent can distinguish propose from approve without opening either 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?

States the workflow condition clearly: nothing is accepted until approve_deal is called with confirm:true, which tells the agent this is the pre-approval step. It does not, however, contrast with negotiate_offer or draft_handoff, leaving some ambiguity about when a proposal is preferable to continued negotiation.

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