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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by saying the decision gates payment capture and payout release, but it omits whether decisions can be reversed, whether a rejected proof can be resubmitted, and what permissions or reviewer identity are needed.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action set front-loaded and the business consequence trailing. There is no filler or redundancy.

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-parameter mutation with no output schema that gates payment and payout, the description covers the action and its money-related consequence but not the downstream effects of each decision (e.g., does rejection permanently block payout, can a dispute be resolved later). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the enum for 'decision' and the conditional requirement of 'reason'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 specific verbs (accept, reject, dispute) and a specific resource (submitted operator proof), so the action is unambiguous. It does not need to distinguish from siblings because no sibling tool touches proof review, but it also doesn't explicitly route away from anything, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 'before payment capture and payout release' gives a clear triggering condition: this review gates money movement. However, it never states when not to use it, what state the job must be in, or any alternative path if review is skipped, so guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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