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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description goes further by disclosing the material side effect (releases the money) and the auth requirement (write key plus idempotencyKey). It stops short of saying whether acceptance is final/irreversible or what happens after money is released.

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 short sentences with the action and its consequence front-loaded, then prerequisites. The sandbox apiKey sentence closely duplicates the schema's apiKey property text, which is the only wasted line.

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 money-moving mutation with no output schema and incomplete annotation coverage (no destructiveHint/irreversibility signal), the description covers auth and effect but leaves the return value, failure modes, and the role of mandateId unspecified.

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 only 25%, so the description must carry the load, but jobId and mandateId get no explanation at all and idempotencyKey is only named, not defined (no statement of dedupe semantics). The apiKey guidance largely restates what the schema property description already says.

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 (accept) plus the precondition (delivered work whose check passed) and the consequence (releases the money), which separates it from the deliver/request_revision/dispute cluster. It never names a sibling outright, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

'Accept delivered work whose check passed' gives a clear precondition for calling it, and the description tells the agent where to obtain the credential (get_sandbox_key). It omits the counterfactual: what to call instead when the check failed (dispute) or the work is wrong (request_revision).

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