gt_negotiation_detect_anchor_attack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the mathematical operation (z-score) and the three possible recommendations, but does not explain the derivation, side effects, or error conditions. The transparency is moderate but lacks detail.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences that capture the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Despite conciseness, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the return format, the expected structure of market_prior (keys mu and sigma), or how the z-score recommendation is determined. Given the complexity and lack of output schema, more detail is needed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies market_prior as {mu, sigma}, but there is a mismatch: the opponent_offer_history is described as 'opponent's opening offer' (singular) while the schema expects an array of numbers (history). This inconsistency reduces clarity.

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's purpose: to detect an anchor attack by z-scoring the opponent's opening offer against a market prior, and to recommend an action. This differentiates it from sibling tools which are about auctions and mechanism design.

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 when you have an opponent's opening offer and a market prior, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gt_negotiation_buy_next_offer or gt_negotiation_sell_next_offer. No when-not conditions are provided.

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