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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the original terms remain intact, a later proposal silently replaces an earlier one still awaiting an answer, and the business responds in inspect_offer thread.counteroffers with a revised offer or a reason. The closing 'Nothing here orders or pays' clarifies the non-destructive boundary even though readOnlyHint is false.

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 purpose, then the changeable dimensions, then the consequence and follow-up path. Dense but each sentence carries information; a few clauses ('on its inspected terms') are jargon-heavy but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains where the answer appears (inspect_offer thread.counteroffers) and what happens to superseded proposals. For a nested, five-required-parameter mutation tool that is nearly complete, though it says nothing about failure modes or authorization beyond the token carried in the schema.

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 already 100%, and the description still adds meaning by tying quantities to item indices in terms.items and explaining counterparties only applies where items price companies, plus framing total_minor as a price for the whole. It stops short of describing the token/terms_sha256 staleness check, but the schema covers that.

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 precise verb and resource ('Propose a change to an issued offer') and enumerates the dimensions that can be changed (quantities, companies, delivery date, total, payment plan, note). It immediately frames the act as a proposal rather than a mutation, which separates it from accept_offer without naming it.

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?

Clear about when to use it: when the inspected terms are not acceptable as-is, while noting the terms still stand and can be accepted unchanged. It does not explicitly name accept_offer or decline_offer as the alternatives, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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