get_negotiation_move

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that each result includes the move, the shape of what to say, and what never to do, which is useful context. However, it does not mention any safety profile, side effects, or return format beyond this content list.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a concise list of situations and output components. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 lookup tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states what the tool returns, the valid inputs, and the composition of the output. It lacks edge-case guidance (e.g., what if situation is invalid) but that is adequately handled by the schema's enum constraint.

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 single parameter situation has an enum, and the description lists the allowed values, which repeats the schema. It adds meaning about the output (move, shape, never-do) but does not clarify how to select a situation or what each value implies beyond its name. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates.

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 tool returns a negotiation move for a given situation, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('negotiation move'). It lists the six possible situations, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like interpret_pricing_model or interpret_usage_term.

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 implies usage—call it when you have one of the enumerated situations—but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides no exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer based on the situation names.

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