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

With annotations providing no behavioral hints beyond non-readOnly, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses immediate recording, conditional payout release based on Stripe settlement, the worker completing the release, the returned status remaining 'delivered' until then, and the 7-day auto-release fallback. This is rich, non-obvious behavior.

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, zero filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by precise behavioral details in a compact semicolon-delimited clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it states the action, the state prerequisite (delivered), the immediate effect, the payout timing, the returned status behavior, and the fallback. An agent has enough to decide when and how to call it correctly.

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 for the single parameter is 100% (UUID of the delivered quote thread). The description adds a little behavioral context (quote must be delivered, acceptance triggers payout) but does not substantially extend the schema's parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Explicitly accept the deliverable on a delivered quote.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like services_accept_quote by anchoring the action on a delivered quote and framing it as acknowledgement/payout release, not quote negotiation.

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?

The description gives clear context: this tool is for accepting a delivered deliverable to trigger payout release, and explains the consequence of not using it (auto-release after 7 days unless dispute filed). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context strongly implies when it should be invoked.

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