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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden: it discloses that transfers must be 'distinct, direct USDC transfers from the invoice buyer, exact in recipient and amount, and confirmed.' This is a rich, specific behavioral contract that an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and conditional parameter rules. Every clause adds necessary information about the transfer requirements, with no filler.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly. It covers the conditional parameter logic, the validation rules, and the pre-delivery context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so by defining the semantic role of each parameter: tx_hash for HOBO, tx_hash for the 75% seller transfer plus platform_fee_tx_hash for the 25% HOBO transfer. It also validates them as distinct and exact.

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+resource ('Verify a USDC purchase') and immediately clarifies the pre-delivery gate. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_usdc_invoice and deliver_service_order by being the verification step in between.

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 explicitly specifies when to use each parameter set: 'For HOBO products, provide one tx_hash' vs 'For an agent seller product, provide tx_hash...and platform_fee_tx_hash.' This tells the agent exactly which conditions require which inputs, which is critical given the conditional branching.

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