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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The single-reuse rule is genuinely useful context, but it omits whether approving/rejecting is irreversible, what permissions or signature verification are required, what happens on an invalid or expired validUntil, and what the caller receives.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The second sentence earns its place by disclosing a real constraint rather than restating the name.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent still cannot tell what a successful call returns, what errors to expect, or what each field means.

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 six required parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. 'Buyer-signed' hints at the signature field and 'another delivery or round' hints at deliverable/attempt, but requestId, approved, and validUntil are left completely unexplained.

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 ('Relay') and a specific resource ('buyer-signed WorkDecision'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like decide_review or work_decision_terms. It stops short of explaining what relaying does operationally, but the action and object are 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named (e.g., how this differs from decide_review or revise_work). The reuse constraint implies a precondition but is framed as a rule, not as usage guidance.

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