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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that acceptance is signed and anchored in Bitcoin and Stellar, credits the seller's Word Pass, makes the order non-disputable, and requires the caller's key. These are exactly the irreversible-state and auth facts annotations cannot convey.

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-loads the core action and consequence in a compact few sentences; the buyer quote adds flavor/meaning without much waste. Slightly narrative but nothing egregious.

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 an irreversible, state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers consequences, defaults (14-day auto-accept), and auth needs well. Remaining gap is the undocumented order_id parameter, which is minor given it is the only argument.

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% and the single required parameter order_id is never described in the text, so nothing compensates. 'Needs your key' hints at signing/auth but does not clarify the order_id parameter itself.

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?

Names a clear verb (accept) and resource (delivery/work) and quotes the buyer's intent, so the agent knows this seals an order. It is distinguishable from siblings like redeliver or open_dispute, though the narrative framing is slightly indirect compared to a plain 'buyer accepts delivery' statement.

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?

Provides a when-to-use signal via the alternative of doing nothing: 'Without it a delivery counts as accepted 14 days after it arrived.' This lets the agent understand the consequence of skipping the call, though no explicit sibling (e.g. open_dispute) is named as an alternative.

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