find_trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns evaluated candidates with payload ids ready for a proposal, which is useful, but it does not describe search cost, result ordering, or other behavioral traits.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The search scope and purpose are front-loaded, and the return behavior is stated immediately afterward.

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 no output schema and four undocumented parameters, the description is only partially complete. It explains the purpose and the general return (evaluated candidates with payload ids), but it omits details about the search constraints and the meaning of max_get, max_give, and limit.

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 0% for four parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameter meaning. It only hints at the partner parameter ("or one partner") and says nothing about limit, max_get, or max_give, leaving three parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching the league or one partner for trades. It also explains the goal (improving expected categories and being defensible for the other team) and what is returned. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like evaluate_trade or create_proposal, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to search the league or one partner for mutually beneficial trade candidates. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives such as evaluate_trade, but the intended usage is clear.

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