evaluate_deal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the slower appraisal option (~15s when include_appraisal is true) and describes the output components (gap, percentile, trends). However, it does not mention authentication needs or potential side effects.

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 a single compact paragraph that starts with the core purpose and then details the returned data. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is slightly longer than necessary but remains 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, computed metrics), the description covers all essential aspects: what it gathers, what it computes, and how to interpret results. The presence of an output schema complements the description, making it fully complete for the agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context by explaining how the parameters influence the recommendation (e.g., trend direction, condition), but does not repeat parameter-level details. A score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair ('Evaluate whether an asking price is a good deal for a watch') and enumerates exactly what data it gathers and computes. It differentiates from siblings like appraise_watch by focusing on deal evaluation rather than just appraisal.

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?

It explicitly states the tool's purpose for giving a buy/negotiate/pass recommendation and explains how to interpret the computed metrics. While it does not list when not to use it, the context and sibling tool names imply alternatives (e.g., appraise_watch for standalone appraisal).

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