List your negotiations

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

Annotations already cover read-only and closed-world safety, so the description's added value is elsewhere: it discloses the auth requirement (GLONGUS_API_KEY) and describes the returned payload shape in detail (amount_cents, fee_cents, buyer_total_cents, next_move with accept price and legal counter range). That is meaningful context beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result volume.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then filters, then payload, then auth — a sensible order and no filler sentences. It is a dense run-on paragraph rather than a structured list, which costs some scannability.

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?

With no output schema, describing return fields is essential and the description does it thoroughly; it also names the credential needed to call it. The only real gap is the unmentioned status filter and the absence of any note on result ordering or volume for a list 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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate — and it does for two of three params, defining the direction enum values and the awaiting_me filter in behavioral terms. The status parameter (with its five enum values) is never mentioned, leaving that filter undocumented outside the 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?

Opens with a specific resource and scope: "Your negotiations on Glongus," and immediately defines both direction values so the agent knows exactly which subset of offers is returned. It is clearly distinguished from single-offer siblings like get_offer, though the "offers" vs "negotiations" naming isn't reconciled explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete operating guidance: '"made" = offers you opened as buyer, "received" = offers on your listings' and 'Set awaiting_me to see only the ones where it is your move.' It does not name an alternative tool (e.g., get_offer for a single negotiation), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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