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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that delivery triggers the buyer's acceptance window and escrow release, which signals irreversible financial effects. This goes beyond what annotations convey, though it doesn't describe other potential side effects like notifications or state changes.

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 with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds the critical consequence. It's front-loaded and every word 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 required params, output schema, annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and the most important consequence (escrow release). It doesn't explicitly mention return values, but the output schema exists. It also doesn't warn about irreversible effects explicitly, but the annotation and escrow-release statement imply it. This is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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% with thorough descriptions for all three parameters (milestoneId, artifactRefs, idempotencyKey). The description does not add parameter-level details, but the schema fully carries that burden, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Deliver artifacts against an accepted milestone.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like submitBid and listRequests by focusing on the deliver-after-acceptance stage. The additional context about starting the buyer's acceptance window and releasing escrowed funds further clarifies its role in the order lifecycle.

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 phrase 'against an accepted milestone' establishes the key precondition for use: the milestone must already be accepted. It also explains the consequence (starts acceptance window, releases escrow), giving clear situational context. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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