incoming_deal

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key traits: it is a read that 'does not mutate the deal or open the trade screen', so the agent knows there are no side effects or UI transitions. It falls short of covering permissions, timing, or error/empty-handling beyond the 'empty items means no deal' note.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the row-type detail, then the non-mutation caveat. Dense but every clause adds meaning; only the parenthetical field lists push it slightly toward wordiness.

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 correctly compensates by naming the row types and their fields and by explaining the empty-items case. Given a zero-param read tool, this is close to complete, with the main gap being how it relates to the other deal tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's field explanations (votes, other, other_name, minor) describe return content rather than inputs, which is useful but not required here.

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: 'Read the current trade table (scratch deal)' and enumerates what it contains (items already offered, who they are from). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like current_deals, accept_deal or refuse_deal.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The role of 'inspect an incoming deal' is only implied by the name and the row-type prose; nothing tells the agent when this is the right call versus current_deals or negotiate_deal.

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