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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the financial consequence (escrow released to contractor minus platform fee), the scope (settles the job), and the irreversibility (cannot be undone). It omits permission/authorization requirements beyond the implicit 'poster' role and any error 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then consequence, then irreversibility. No filler; each sentence contributes distinct 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral facts an agent needs: settlement effect and non-reversibility. It could still note that only the posting party may call it and what happens to the counterparty on rejection, but it is largely 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 job_id and milestone_id. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that milestone_id targets a single milestone ('or one milestone'), but nothing beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (approves) plus resource (a delivery or one milestone) and the acting role (poster). It is unambiguous what the tool does, though it never names a sibling (e.g., jobs_dispute, jobs_cancel) to differentiate itself explicitly.

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 context of use is implied — a poster approves after a delivery — but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no alternative named for contesting a delivery instead of approving it (e.g., jobs_dispute). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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