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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the buyer's agent sees delivered: true plus a log line, and the action carries no text, which clarifies the effect and limits.

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 description is three tight sentences with zero wasted language. The precondition is front-loaded before the observable effect, making it easy to scan and act on.

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 an output schema present, rich annotations, and full schema description coverage, the description supplies the remaining key context: when to mark delivery, what the buyer observes, and that no text is involved. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly appears to be missing.

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%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description references market_deal_log as a source for deal_id but does not add syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: marking a bound digital deal delivered. It clarifies the seller-agent perspective and ties the action to a concrete precondition involving market_deal_log, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like market_deal_log or market_make_offer.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: call this once the file or report was sent to the buyer's email from the contact in market_deal_log. It does not explicitly name when not to use the tool or direct the agent to alternatives, but the triggering context is specific enough to guide selection.

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