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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key side effect (raises buyer's score) and the crucial constraint that it never creates unreported payments. This is significant behavioral transparency for a tool of this simplicity.

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 primary actor and action. The key constraint is stated in the second sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to the tool's usability.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the actor, the effect on the buyer's score, and the limitation. It does not describe failure cases (e.g., if no payments were reported), but that is implicitly covered. The description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 67% (agreement_id has no description). The description adds semantics for 'amount' by explaining it is optional and what happens when omitted. This goes beyond the schema's brief note, though agreement_id remains self-explanatory. Overall, the description enriches parameter understanding.

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 verb 'confirm' and the resource 'buyer paid you under an agreement'. It distinguishes itself from payment recording tools by explicitly saying it never creates a payment the buyer did not report, which is a unique and specific scope.

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 identifies the target user ('For the seller') and the condition for use (confirming reported payments). It implies when not to use it (when the buyer didn't report), but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives. Still, the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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