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

The description discloses meaningful behavior beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it transfers 90% of the held amount to the freelancer's Stripe account and fails if payout onboarding is incomplete. This gives the agent a realistic expectation of side effects, which is especially valuable for a financial mutation.

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?

Three sentences, all information-dense: the action, the permission model, the state change, the financial effect, and a failure condition. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the key runtime preconditions (poster-only, in_progress state, Stripe onboarding) and the primary side effect (funds transfer). It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly and anticipate results.

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 100%: the only parameter, job_id, is fully described in the schema as 'The job's UUID'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but none is needed given the schema's completeness.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Mark'), a concrete resource ('a job'), and the actor ('as that job's poster'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cancel_job by stating the state transition (in_progress to completed) and the financial transfer.

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 gives clear context: only the poster can do it, the bidder cannot; it moves the job from in_progress to completed; and it requires Stripe Connect payout onboarding to succeed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it beyond these constraints, but the context is sufficient for an agent to determine applicability.

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