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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further by explaining exactly what is destroyed ('confirm releases the held payment to the seller and refund returns it to the buyer, and neither can be undone') and adds a security note that the token is sent to the market as a bearer token and must never be repeated. This is above the annotation baseline.

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 economical sentences, front-loaded with the action set and role split, then destructive consequences, then the sibling alternative and token safety. Every clause carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. The description covers the destructive/irreversible behavior, the confirm precondition, the correct sibling for read-only queries, and token safety — everything an agent needs to invoke this mutation tool 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 all three parameters including the role-gated enum and the bearer-token warning. The description largely reiterates those semantics (role mapping, irreversibility, token handling) rather than adding new syntax or format detail, 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 (take one action), the resource (an order), and enumerates the exact actions available per role ('check, confirm or dispute as the buyer, check or refund as the seller'). It explicitly names the sibling it is not (get_order_status), so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use get_order_status instead to read state and next actions' and a hard precondition 'Call confirm only after the buyer has said the domain arrived.' Role-based action eligibility is also stated, leaving little to inference.

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