get_negotiation_tips

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so read-only behavior is covered. The description adds that tips are 'sourced' and include 'success-likelihood', giving some extra context about the output. However, it does not clarify the response structure or what the success-likelihood metric represents.

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 sentence, short and to the point. The phrasing is slightly awkward but it remains concise and front-loaded with the core idea.

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 there is one parameter, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to document the 'slug' parameter or describe what the returned negotiation tips and success-likelihood look like, leaving the agent guessing.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'slug' with zero description coverage. The description mentions 'for a product', which vaguely implies slug identifies a product, but it does not explicitly define the parameter or its expected format.

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 that the tool provides negotiation tactics for a product, including success-likelihood and how to get a discount. This clearly indicates the tool's function. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the tool name itself is fairly distinctive.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_price_history or get_pricing. There is no context about use cases or exclusions.

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