List Negotiations

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden; 'List' implies a read, and the description usefully adds the default sort (last update, newest first) and the shape of the response (collections with action URLs consumed by other negotiation tools). It omits pagination behavior, result-size limits, and permission/scope requirements, which matter for a nine-parameter listing endpoint.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the filtering and response details, with essentially no filler. The final sentence about action URLs is slightly indirect but earns its place by pointing the agent at how other negotiation tools consume this output.

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?

For a nine-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, default ordering, and response envelope, but leaves pagination, undocumented flags, and safety/scope information unexplained. It is adequate to attempt a call but not complete enough to call confidently with the optional parameters.

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, and it does so only partially: status, vacancy_id, has_updates, and the order/order_by default are addressed, while page, per_page, with_job_search_status, and with_generated_collections are undocumented anywhere. Pagination in particular is invisible to the agent, so the description falls short of fully bridging the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List negotiations') and clarifies the domain meaning with '(responses and invitations) of the current user', which an agent could not infer from the name alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling list_collection_negotiations, leaving the agent to guess which list to call.

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 the scoping ('of the current user') and by the listed filter dimensions, so an agent can infer this is the general browse/list entry point. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to the sibling tools that might serve overlapping needs.

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