get_negotiation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by noting that full threads can be long and that the tool returns the complete message thread plus ransom metadata, which is useful beyond the schema.

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 compact, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence earns its place. The args section is short but meaningful, with no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read operation with output schema and readOnly annotations, the description provides everything needed: purpose, alternative routing, parameter examples, and the caveat about long threads. No critical operational context is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates. It explains group with a concrete example and specifies that chat_id should come from list_group_negotiations, giving the agent both format and provenance guidance.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full message thread and ransom metadata for one negotiation chat.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling list_group_negotiations by emphasizing the full thread versus summary data.

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 explicitly names the preferred alternative: 'Prefer list_group_negotiations first to read ransom amounts and outcomes without pulling every message.' It also warns that threads can be long, giving the agent clear context for choosing between the tools.

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