respond_trade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical trait: accepting may be irreversible, executing immediately when trade_review_days is 0. It omits what the returned result contains, whether the write needs confirmation via the `confirm` param, and any permission/auth requirements, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 leading 'WRITE.' marker front-loads the operation class, and the irreversibility warning is placed before the argument notes. The 'Args:' block is minimal and earns its space, though the trailing formatting is slightly loose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the destructive/write nature is covered. The remaining gap is the undocumented non-required parameters (confirm, leg, league_id_), which an agent cannot infer from anywhere.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It documents the `response` value set and where transaction_id comes from, but leaves `leg`, `confirm`, and `league_id_` entirely unexplained in both description and schema.

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?

States a specific verb pair (accept/reject) and resource (a trade offered to you), which cleanly separates it from propose_trade and trade_block among the siblings. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the 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?

It explicitly routes the agent to the `pending` sibling to obtain transaction_id, which is actionable context. It does not explain when to prefer reject vs accept or when the veto window applies beyond the trade_review_days=0 case, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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