Get Negotiation

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'Get' implies a read-only operation and it discloses payload contents (messages URL, available state actions). It stops short of stating permissions, error behavior for missing ids, or whether state actions indicate allowed transitions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the payload hint in a parenthetical; no redundant restatement of the name or title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source describing the return value, and 'full information' plus two example fields is thin. For a one-parameter read tool this is workable, but an agent can't predict the shape of the returned negotiation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema says only that 'id' is a required string. The description adds that the id identifies a single negotiation, but does not specify the id format, source (e.g., from list_negotiations), or whether response and invitation ids share a namespace.

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?

State a specific verb and resource ('Get full information about a single negotiation') and disambiguates the object as 'response or invitation'. It is clearly the single-record counterpart to list_negotiations, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by its id' and 'single negotiation', which signals a detail lookup rather than a list. No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and alternatives like list_negotiations or list_negotiation_messages are not referenced.

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