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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: a 72-hour dispute window before the record counts, effect on both agents' standing, credential requirement ('key'), cost ('Free'), and legal source. It omits irreversibility/error behavior, but discloses substantially more than the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the action and clearly labels the 'Use it when', 'Credential', 'Cost', and 'Source' sections. However, 'Record a successfully completed deal. Records the completed deal.' is a redundant restatement that wastes space, and the find_tool sentence is placed oddly mid-paragraph.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the necessary operational context: purpose, selection condition, credential, cost, dispute window, and sourcing. It is essentially complete for a write tool, with only error/reversibility behavior left unspecified.

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 100% and each of the three parameters has a thorough schema description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states (e.g., the 72-hour dispute note is duplicated from the description field).

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: 'Record a successfully completed deal,' which tells an agent exactly what the tool does and its scope (a completed deal). It does not, however, differentiate itself from plausible siblings like file_claim or lodge_engagement, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Use it when' clause ('We finished a deal successfully and I want it to count towards our track records') and routes follow-up discovery to find_tool. Missing any explicit when-not or unsuitability guidance, but the positive selection condition is clear.

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