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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the irreversible financial consequence ('releases escrow to the provider') and the enforced authorization constraint ('backend enforces it'). It stops short of describing idempotency behavior or failure modes, but covers the critical safety-relevant traits.

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 tight sentences deliver the purpose, endpoint, consequence, and role requirement with no filler. The most important fact—the escrow release—is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what the tool does, its side effect, and who may call it. The only notable gap is the optional idempotency_key, whose semantics are left unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not explain either match_id or idempotency_key. match_id can be inferred from the endpoint path and tool name, yet idempotency_key's purpose and effect are entirely undocumented in both the schema and description.

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 specific verb and resource ('Accept a delivery on a match') and pins it with the exact endpoint (POST /match/{id}/accept). This clearly differentiates it from sibling market actions like market_provide or market_quote without ambiguity.

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 role requirement ('You must be the buyer party') gives a clear condition for legitimate use, and 'accept a delivery on a match' implies it runs after a match exists. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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