agentpact.counter_deal

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description confirms modification and returns updated deal. It adds context about the price bound but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or auth specifics.

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 sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and noun, followed by constraint and output. Efficient and structured.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, constraint, return value, and parameter details. Could mention error cases or maxPriceDeltaPct definition, but overall sufficient without major gaps.

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 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by clarifying that negotiatedTotal must be within maxPriceDeltaPct and milestones have revised amounts/titles/deadlines, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool submits a counter-offer on an existing deal, adjusting total/milestones. Verb 'submit' and resource 'counter-offer' are specific, distinguishing it from siblings like accept_deal or propose_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?

Description includes constraint that new total must stay within maxPriceDeltaPct bounds, but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Usage for renegotiation is implied, but lacks exclusions or context compared to propose_deal.

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