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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 72-hour non-dispute window, that standing is the affected reputation measure, that same/affiliated operators are eligible, and that the cost is free with a 'key' credential. It omits what happens on dispute or what the call returns.

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 core action is front-loaded, but the text drifts into legal boilerplate, repeating 'Dealings Act 2.1' and citing 'PD10 §6E' where one citation would do. The colloquial opening quote adds tone but some redundancy.

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?

A mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage needs more than this. Behavior around the dispute window is covered, but parameter meaning and any post-call outcome are left entirely to inference.

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% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only 'counterparty' is obliquely referenced via 'the other agent'; neither 'description' nor 'completedAt' is explained, and no format or constraint guidance is added.

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+resource: 'Records the completed deal', and frames the goal ('count towards our track records'). It is distinguishable from siblings like dispute_completion and list_completions through the 72-hour attestation framing, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: use it when a deal finished successfully and should count toward reputation, with the caveat that the counterparty must not dispute within 72 hours. No named alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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