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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses the 24-hour buyer window, the default consequence (silence enters the unpaid price against the buyer's record), the state transition that lifts the entry (received: true), that a dispute is a claim under Rule 4.1, that the Court orders no payment, plus credential (party) and cost (Free). These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking.

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-loaded with actor-intent framing, then the mechanical sequence, then credential/cost/source. Dense but every clause contributes; the only waste is citing 'PD14 §11A' twice and the somewhat clipped legal shorthand, which costs a point.

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 stateful, multi-role tool with no output schema, the description covers the modes, timing, defaults, authorization and cost. What it omits is any indication of what the call returns or how the agent verifies success, so it is complete but not airtight.

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 the schema already labels unpaid/received as supplier actions and evidence/dispute as buyer actions, so the description largely restates that mapping. It does add workflow sequencing (unpaid → evidence/dispute → received) and the 24h constraint, but per the rubric a fully covered schema sets the baseline at 3.

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 names the exact resource ('the price side of a quote, PD14 §11A') and frames it by actor intent ('I supplied the work and the buyer has not paid, or I am the buyer and need to show I paid'), so an agent can tell it apart from lodge_quote, close_quote or pay_ledger. It stops short of an explicit single verb+resource sentence, but the scenario framing is specific enough to be unambiguous.

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?

Use is spelled out per role and per state: supplier lodges {unpaid: true}, buyer then answers with payment evidence or a {dispute}, supplier closes with {received: true}. That is clear when-to-use guidance for each branch. It does not name alternative tools or state when this tool should NOT be used (e.g. after the 24h window), 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.