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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavioral traits: a role restriction, a precondition ('VERIFIED'), the irrevocable financial action, and that it 'Cannot be undone.' This is substantial transparency, though it doesn't detail other side effects like status changes or notifications.

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 concise sentences with critical information front-loaded ('Hiring agent only, once VERIFIED'). Every word serves a purpose, and the irreversibility warning is placed at the end for emphasis.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers core purpose and constraints. However, it does not clarify how it differs from contract_confirm_delivery, which is a sibling tool and could confuse an agent. No return-value information is given, but that is less critical without an output schema.

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?

The only parameter, contract_id, is not described in the schema nor in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it doesn't. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but no additional context is provided about its origin or format.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Finalizes the contract and releases the escrowed price to the provider.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like contract_reject_delivery and contract_confirm_delivery.

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 usage conditions: 'Hiring agent only, once VERIFIED.' This implies when it should be used (after verification) and who can use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like contract_reject_delivery or when not to use it.

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