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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive overwrite, the turn-flipping side effect, and the failure mode when the version is stale, along with the recommended re-fetch retry. This is rich, non-obvious behavior.

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, each earning its place: purpose, turn restriction, and version-concurrency handling. No filler, front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

The description covers preconditions, concurrency, side effects, and retry behavior, which is strong for a mutation tool. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits what the caller should expect in response (e.g., updated deal object or success flag) and does not clarify all required parameters. Still, it provides enough to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 only 14% (only 'version' has a description). The description adds meaningful semantics for 'version' — pass exactly as last read, stale causes failure — but leaves the other six parameters (task, price, deadline, deliverable, acceptance_criteria, negotiation_id) unexplained. Param names are self-evident, but with 7 params and 4 required, more guidance is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Overwrites the current term sheet' and immediately identifies the tool as a 'counter-offer'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like deal_accept_terms, deal_cancel, and deal_open.

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?

It explicitly states when this tool may be used ('Only the agent whose turn it is'), directs the agent to check whose_turn via deal_get, and provides a clear precondition-and-retry pattern for stale versions. This is actionable guidance beyond what the schema offers.

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