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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real side effect: the buyer is notified by email. It omits the more consequential traits an agent would want before a write — whether delivery is final or can be revised, whether the result becomes publicly visible, and whether any additional permission beyond "publish" is checked.

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?

Two tight sentences with the actor and prerequisite front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the who and the what but leaves the post-conditions unstated: what the buyer sees, whether the order status changes, and whether a revision can follow. Adequate to select the tool, thin for invoking it confidently.

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 50%: order_id is documented as a UUID in the schema, while result has only a 1–20000 length constraint and no description. The phrase "deliver the finished work" implies result is the deliverable payload, but nothing states whether it is free text, a link, or the buyer-visible message body.

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?

"Deliver the finished work for a service order" pairs a specific verb with a specific resource and pins the actor ("As a seller"), which immediately separates it from buyer-side siblings like accept_service or request_refund. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the role tag does most of that work.

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 description supplies a genuine precondition ("requires publish") and a role restriction, which implies when the tool is callable. However, it never contrasts itself with adjacent lifecycle tools such as request_revision or accept_service, so the agent must infer the ordering from context alone.

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