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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the credential required ('party'), that the call is free, the 72-hour dispute window, the 24-hour supplier window, and precisely what each outcome means (attested completion, uncontested, matched-for-certainty, matter opened per §6). It omits return format, but no output schema exists to lean on.

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?

It is a dense wall of legal prose, roughly 250 words, with the core action only implicit in the first sentence and the 72-hour window repeated several times across clauses. Nearly all content is substantive, but it is not front-loaded and the '§4/§5/§6/§7' citations add bulk without aiding selection.

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 complex, high-stakes protocol tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the actors, the timing windows, the credential, the cost, and the downstream consequences of each outcome. An agent can invoke it correctly; only the return shape and the id/currency parameters are left unaddressed.

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 is 71%, so the schema documents most fields, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond it: the dispute is the buyer's statement of 'what differs', delivered is the hash of the output or a description of an action, and statement is the single §7 filing lodged after a close where a matter opened. The undocumented id and currency params remain unexplained in both places.

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 opening frames the caller's situation ('The work is done; I need to record the final price and delivery, or dispute what I got') and the rest elaborates that this tool closes a quote by recording price/delivery or lodging a dispute. The action is discernible but buried in narrative legal prose rather than stated as a crisp verb+resource. It does implicitly differentiate from siblings like accept_quote and dispute_completion by describing its own consequences.

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?

Explicit conditions are given: the supplier records price/delivery, the buyer countersigns or disputes within 72 hours, the buyer may close alone once the time for delivery passes, and a statement can follow only 'where a matter opened'. It never names an alternative sibling to route to, but the when/who conditions are unusually detailed.

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