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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, openWorld=true, and idempotent=false, but the description adds important non-obvious behavior: escrow capture and a 95/5 payout split, limited to escrow-backed matches. It does not cover authorization or reversibility, but it adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every clause adds either the action, the resource, or the financial effect.

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 destructive financial mutation with no output schema and partial parameter documentation, the description covers the core trigger and payout split. However, it omits authorization requirements, signature semantics, non-escrow behavior, and error or return expectations.

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 only 33%, with just the signature parameter documented. The description does not explain the required match_id or optional delivery_ref, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Confirm delivery of a Match') and adds the financial effect. It does not explicitly distinguish this action from sibling close_match, so it falls 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 description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not explain how to choose between confirm_delivery and close_match. The phrase 'when the match is escrow-backed' describes a conditional effect, not invocation guidance.

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