propose_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a provider action only, free, and requires an API key. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the price is invalid, leaving some gaps in transparency for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and key constraints, all in three efficient sentences with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the action and basic constraints but lacks details on return values, error cases, or deeper behavioral aspects, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or usage tips, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 action ('proposes a price') and resource ('for a thread on the402.ai'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'accept_proposal' or 'send_message' in terms of negotiation flow, which prevents a perfect score.

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 clear context on when to use this tool ('After discussing requirements with the agent') and mentions the subsequent actions ('agent can then accept and pay, or continue negotiating'), giving good guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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