start_negotiation

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world. The description adds internal steps (looks up URL template, substitutes, fetches) and return structure (session_id, greeting, next URL). No contradictions.

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?

Description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections. It is informative without being verbose. Slightly long but justified by content.

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 only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, internal process, and return format comprehensively. Fully meets the needs for a negotiation start 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 has 0% description coverage. Description explains domain as 'Site to negotiate at' and product_id as 'Must be one of products[].id from list_products().' This adds meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Open a new negotiation session for a specific product.' It specifies the verb (open/start) and the resource (negotiation session), and distinguishes it from siblings like list_products and send_message.

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 provides a prerequisite: product_id must be one from list_products(). It implicitly tells when to use this tool (start negotiation) and gives context for domain. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use but is clear enough.

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