gt_negotiation_sell_next_offer

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

With no annotations, the description partially fulfills the transparency burden by disclosing the pareto knob interpolation and the return values (recommended offer, acceptance probability, expected payoff, posterior). However, it does not mention idempotency, side effects, or required authorization.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value, covering the tool's core purpose, a key parameter, and return values.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, sibling tools), the description adequately explains the tool's function and outputs but lacks parameter definitions for the required inputs and does not describe the output structure in detail.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. Only the 'pareto_knob' parameter is explained (range and effect). The other five parameters, including all four required ones, receive no additional semantic context beyond their names.

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 identifies the tool as a sell-side next-offer recommendation, distinguishing it from the sibling 'gt_negotiation_buy_next_offer'. It specifies the verb 'recommend', the resource 'next offer', and the side 'sell', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 in sell-side negotiation scenarios but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like auction tools or the buy-side counterpart. No exclusions or conditional guidance are provided.

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