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 behavioral consequences: releasing escrowed budget and completing the task. This implies finality and irreversibility. It also emphasizes verification before approval, adding important context about the acceptable workflow.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a critical precaution. No fluff or redundancy, every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main operation, its financial impact, and the essential verification requirement. It could mention return values or error handling, but these are not critical for basic usage given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already documents api_key and feedback with descriptions. task_id lacks a description but its purpose is obvious from the context. The description adds helpful context about verifying criterion responses, which indirectly relates to task_id, but it doesn't elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. With 67% schema coverage, the description provides minimal added parameter semantics.

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 purpose: 'Accept submitted work: releases the escrowed budget to the human and completes the task.' It uses a specific verb (accept) and a specific resource (submitted work) and distinguishes from siblings like request_changes and cancel_task by indicating the completion action.

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 instruction 'Verify each criterion response (and open attachment URLs) first' provides clear contextual guidance on when to use this tool: only after verification. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like legwork_request_changes, the condition is clear enough to prevent misuse.

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