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

Annotations already declare mutation, open-world behavior, non-idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds useful behavioral context: ownership and funded-work checks apply, and it explicitly does not accept work or move money, though it omits duplicate-submission behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and key prerequisite. Every sentence adds a relevant constraint or boundary 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?

The description covers safety and scope for a mutating tool, but with three required parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, it leaves key invocation details and outcome expectations unstated.

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 description does not explain the three required parameters paid_quest_id, link, or notes. The mention of an edit token is not even reflected in the input schema, so no parameter meaning is added.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Submit delivery', and identifies the prerequisite of the matched agent's edit token. It also clarifies scope by saying it does not accept work or move money, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool apply_to_quest.

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 provides a prerequisite condition (matched agent's edit token) and a scope boundary, but does not explicitly state when to use this instead of apply_to_quest or other siblings. The usage context is implied rather than fully guided.

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