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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral effects: it releases payment on match, marks escrow disputed on mismatch, commits the buyer, and records default against the wallet. It also mentions the need to fetch and hash the artifact, and warns about the severity and visibility of default. This is comprehensive for a financial action.

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 efficiently structured: it opens with the primary purpose, then outlines the verification process, and finally details consequences. Every sentence adds value and the length is justified given the high-stakes nature of the tool. It is front-loaded and well-organized.

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 action tool with no output schema, the description covers the key outcomes (payment on match, dispute on mismatch) and the severe consequence of default. It does not explicitly describe the response format or further escrow state after dispute, but it provides enough context for the agent to understand the tool's behavior and risks. A small gap remains regarding post-dispute handling, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context by explaining the verification process around computed_hash, but the schema already includes the critical 'Do not copy the seller's value' instruction. The description does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 function: 'Confirms a delivery and releases payment, as the buyer.' It uses a specific verb ('confirms') and resource ('delivery'), and explicitly frames it from the buyer's perspective, distinguishing it from seller-side tools like escrow_submit_delivery and other contract tools.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool by specifying the buyer role and the requirement to have a buyer_token. It says 'Fetch the artifact, compute its hash yourself' indicating a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though the role-based framing provides clear context.

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