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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a meaningful side effect: creation of a 7% commission invoice, plus an implied seller role. However, it says nothing about permissions, idempotency/repeat reporting, reversibility, or what happens if the deal was not previously matched.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the actor, action, and consequence with no filler. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

A mutation tool with a financial side effect, zero annotation coverage, zero parameter documentation, and no output schema. The description omits auth, parameter meaning, and failure behavior, so an agent lacks enough to invoke it reliably.

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 0% and the description documents none of the four parameters. An agent cannot tell that token is an auth credential, that jodoh_id links to the match, or that nilai/mata_uang are the deal amount and currency, even though the '7% commission' hint loosely implies nilai is the transaction value.

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 a specific verb (reports), a specific resource (a completed deal from an OCKLU match), and a concrete side effect (records the 7% commission invoice). This differentiates it from siblings like setujui_jodoh (approve a match) or cek_jodoh (check a match), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g., a match must already exist via setujui_jodoh), and no exclusions against the ten sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is the post-deal step in the match lifecycle.

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