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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so richly: permission/role constraint (buyer only), consequence profile ('no penalty to either side'), rate limit (capped at 2 per escrow), and the downstream workflow ('resubmits, or declines and the delivery goes to evaluation'). This is well beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the actor and action, then constraints and outcome. No filler; every sentence carries a distinct piece of 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still conveys the two possible outcomes (seller resubmits, or declines with the delivery routed to evaluation). Combined with the permission, penalty, and cap details, it is complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 the schema already documents both parameters including the reason's relationship to the escrow description. The prose adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('ask the seller to change a submitted delivery') and explicitly differentiates from the dispute path ('instead of disputing it'), which sets it apart from the raise_dispute sibling. The 'Buyer only' qualifier pins down the actor and scope.

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?

Names the alternative (dispute), the condition that selects this tool over it (you want a change to a submitted delivery), the actor (buyer only), and the rate constraint (capped per escrow, default 2). An agent knows when to reach for this versus disputing.

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