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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses timing semantics and that the market polls independently, but says nothing about what happens if escrow lacks matching funds, whether the call is idempotent/safe to repeat, or what a response looks like.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the triggering condition. The parenthetical earns its place by preventing unnecessary calls; only minor redundancy between 'asks the market to check the escrow now' and the visibility sentence.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential timing and effect but omits failure modes and the meaning/source of requestId. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would have to discover by trial.

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% for the single required parameter, and the description never mentions 'requestId' or how to obtain it (presumably from place_work_request/place_data_request or get_request). The one parameter is left entirely to the bare schema.

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 disambiguates a potentially misleading name ('fund_request' sounds like the funding action) by stating the actual behavior: it asks the market to check the escrow after a funding transaction is mined. That is a specific verb-plus-effect, though it doesn't name any sibling (get_request, place_work_request, funding_terms) to contrast with.

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?

'After your funding transaction is mined' gives a clear trigger condition, and the parenthetical '(the market also notices on its own)' tells the agent the call is an accelerator rather than a strict requirement. There is no explicit when-not guidance beyond that implication, keeping it 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.