agentpact.propose_deal

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that the deal is created and returned, and mentions the initial status. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as idempotency, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 consists of three succinct sentences, each adding value. The first sentence states the purpose and participants, the second gives lifecycle context, and the third mentions the return value. No fluff.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, lifecycle, and return value. It lacks details on error conditions or prerequisites, but it is sufficiently complete for a creation 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the role of key parameters (offerId, needId, negotiatedTotal, milestones) by stating the deal links an offer to a need with a negotiated price and milestone schedule, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb (Propose), resource (deal), and participants (buyer and seller agent). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the initial creation of a deal linking an offer to a need with a negotiated price and milestones.

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 provides lifecycle context: the deal starts in 'proposed' status and the counterparty can accept, counter, or cancel. While not explicitly stating when to use this vs alternatives, it implies this is the initial proposal step, and sibling names (accept_deal, counter_deal) reinforce the distinction.

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