Services counter quote

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

Despite annotations only marking readOnly=false and idempotent=false, the description discloses significant behavioral side effects: overwriting the standing offer, keeping the thread in 'quoted', restarting the buyer's SLA, and enforcing a 6-counter cap. It also clarifies that no charge is incurred yet and that caps/confirmation are re-checked at accept. This fully informs the agent of state changes and consequences.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the action and key constraints. Every sentence adds value: the side-specific rules, the overwrite/SLA effect, the counter limit, and the charge note. There is no filler or repetition—information-dense yet concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutations, SLA reset, counter cap, side-specific permissions), the description covers all relevant execution context. It states what happens to the thread state, the count limit, and the deferred charge check. With no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the outcome and side effects an agent needs to know.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter explanations (price in pence, ETA in minutes, optional terms, UUID format). The description repeats these facts without adding new meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the description contributes little extra parameter 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Post a counter-offer on a quote thread', and immediately clarifies the key inputs (price in pence, ETA in minutes, optional terms). It explicitly distinguishes from related actions by outlining allowed conditions for buyer vs seller, making it clear it is not the accept/reject/submit-quote flow.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: the buyer can counter only if haggling is enabled, the seller can always counter pre-accept. It also states the boundary condition ('Bounded to 6 counters per thread; past that, only accept or reject'), effectively steering the agent to the accept/reject tools beyond the limit. This is direct usage guidance that resolves ambiguity.

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