Hmm, I don't see the problem. Of course inanimate objects can do things! For example, "The rock falls to the ground." The rock is doing something: it is falling. It doesn't require intelligence or will to obey the laws of gravity. Or, "The alarm clock made a loud noise." The alarm clock is doing something: making noise. It has mechanical or electronic parts that cause it to do this. Again, it doesn't have to be a living being to make noise.
To take your examples:
"The agreement details the terms and conditions." The agreement presumably contains text, and this text describes or explains the terms and conditions. That's what text does, isn't it? Of course it required a human being to formulate the words, but so what?
"The hotel overlooks Langland Bay." Maybe there's a hint of personification here. Can a building literally "look" at something? I guess that depends on the exact definition of "overlooks". If you define it in terms of height and direction, then yes. If you define it in terms of eyes and seeing, then I guess not, as a building doesn't have eyes.
Of course we do often personify inanimate objects. We might say, "This car doesn't like cold weather" when what we really mean is that it is difficult to start the car in cold weather or that it runs poorly in cold weather. Or, "My computer is sick" when we mean that it is not working properly. Etc.
"This pen writes perfectly." In this case we are using the word "write" to describe the mechanical function of depositing ink on paper. Again, something that an inanimate object is perfectly capable of doing. We might say that a person is writing in this same sense. Like if a teacher says, "The instructions for your homework are on the board. Please write them down so you don't forget", the teacher is instructing the students to perform the mechanical action of copying the text. But if she says, "You are to write a 10-page paper on the history of Ruritania", she probably is using "write" to mean the creative act of putting ideas together, etc. I wouldn't say that a pen can "write" in that sense, of course.
Are you a non-native English speaker trying to learn the language? If so, do you not use similar wording in your native language? How do you express an idea like, "The book fell off the shelf" in your language?
Or are you a native speaker who just suddenly found this un-nerving?
The phrase no one of them is "grammatical" (taking that to mean that it is both idiomatic and meaningful), but it is not always the same thing as none of them. It is an emphatic form employed to distinguish a proposition concerning a number of entities taken singly from propositions concerning the same entities taken in combination.
Consider the difference between these two propositions concerning three people, Adolphus, Benjamin and Carloman, suspected of murdering Dionysius.
None of them killed him. This is taken to assert that all three are innocent of the murder.
No one of them killed him. This implies the possibility that two of them—A and B, or A and C, or B and C—or all three, conspired to commit the murder.
So it might be perfectly proper to say of three utterances that "No one of them is grammatical" if you intend to propose that some combination of the utterances is grammatical.
Best Answer
Both of these imply one or the other. Either is exactly the word you are looking for.