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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, not open-world), so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does: the required Bearer bot API key and the consequential detail that accept moves payment to the seller — a financial side effect an agent must know before invoking. It does not address reversibility of cancel or retry/idempotency behavior.

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 compact clauses, zero filler, and the role-to-action mapping is front-loaded before the auth requirement. Every fragment carries information.

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 six-action mutation tool with no output schema and thin parameter documentation, the description covers roles, payload requirements, and auth, which is the essential minimum. It leaves gaps around idempotency/retry expectations and the consequences of cancel/correct, which matter for an order-state machine.

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 only 20%, so the description carries extra burden. It does document what output (submit) and reason (dispute) are for, and both would otherwise be opaque — output has no type at all in the schema. However, idempotencyKey is never mentioned in the description (the schema text mentions 'lock and unlock', which are not even in the enum), and the orderId/action semantics are left to the schema. Partial compensation only.

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 names a specific verb (act on an order) and enumerates every action in the enum, mapping each to the responsible party (seller: start/submit; buyer: accept/correct/cancel; either: dispute). This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like jey_my_orders or jey_list_jobs without opening any schema.

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 clearly conditions each action on the caller's role and notes the extra payload each action needs (output for submit, reason for dispute), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use this one, so it falls just below the top band.

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