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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that proposing is a binding agreement once accepted and explains the initiator's hashlock requirement. It does not cover authorization needs, failure modes, or return behavior, which are material gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

It is three compact sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the consequential acceptance semantics and the hashlock note. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavior an agent needs: countering on a thread, binding acceptance, and the initiator's hashlock. It still omits what the tool returns and any permission or failure conditions, so it is not fully complete.

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 low at 33%, but the description compensates by clarifying that quoteAmount is a total price in base units and that hashlock is sha256(secret) for the initiator. The id parameter is only implicitly described as the thread identifier, leaving minor ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Counter with a new total price on a thread (base units).' It clearly identifies this as a counter-proposal action rather than an initial quote or an acceptance, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like quote_rfq.

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 provides clear usage context: use it to counter a price on a thread, and it explains that the counterparty must accept via accept_proposal(accept: true). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar actions.

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