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

The description adds real value beyond the annotations: it discloses the two-phase write pattern (returns a MarkDelivered transaction to sign and send) and a security constraint ('Never include keys or tokens'). Annotations already cover non-read-only and non-destructive, so this additional workflow context earns a 4; what's missing is any statement about slot state changes or failure 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 with no filler: action first, input modes second, return/next-step and safety last. Every sentence carries operational 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 5-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (a transaction to sign), the follow-up call, and input alternatives. Gaps remain around whether a slot can be re-delivered, what happens on a duplicate delivery, and how slot state transitions, but the essentials for a correct invocation are present.

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 40%, and the description compensates by explaining the body/threadRef alternatives (mutually exclusive input paths) and the loop-slot semantics of `slot`, which the schema only touches via a docstring. It does not explain `taskId` or add format detail for `threadRef`, so it falls short of full compensation.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Deliver') tied to a specific resource and scope ('work for a loop slot you hold'), which an agent can distinguish from desk_deliver's one-shot flow. It stops short of explicitly naming desk_deliver as the sibling it is not, so a 4 rather than 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?

Gives a clear procedural chain: deliver, then call desk_loop_submitted. The precondition 'a loop slot you hold' implicitly routes to desk_loop_redeem. It lacks an explicit when-not or alternative-selection statement, keeping it below 5.

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