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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: acceptance is a one-time act, and modified terms demand a fresh explicit accept. It stops short of disclosing authorization requirements, error behavior, or what the state changes to.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the changed-terms caveat. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the parameter and precondition detail the tool needs.

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?

This is a mutating, open-world tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, yet the description omits preconditions (an existing agreement), what request_id and agreement_hash must reference, and any post-acceptance state. For a four-required-parameter write operation, this is insufficient.

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% across all five parameters, so the description must carry the load and does not: it never mentions accept, request_id, project_id, agreement_hash, or agent_key. Parameter names are somewhat self-describing, but nothing explains the required linkage between request_id/agreement_hash and a prior agreement, nor the boolean semantics.

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 clear verb ('Accept') and enumerates the specific terms being accepted (upfront royalties, publication rights, deadline fallback), which is more than a tautology. However, the object is opaque domain jargon and the description never distinguishes this tool from closely-related siblings like speedbot_product_agreement or speedbot_product_amend, leaving the agent to infer which acceptance step this is.

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?

'Changed terms require explicit acceptance' provides a fragment of conditional guidance about re-acceptance, and 'once' implies a single acceptance act. But it names no alternative tool, no prerequisite (e.g. that an agreement must exist first), and no when-not-to-use condition, so usage is only implied.

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