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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses pricing (0.10 USDC per call on Base mainnet via x402 exact), the shared 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, the mandatory X-Wever-Wallet-Proof bound to the JSON args and path, the 25.00 USDC escrow cap, the order state machine, dispute/expiry refund behavior, and explicit prohibitions (no private keys, no payee substitution, no granted authority). This is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutating, destructive, non-idempotent tool.

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?

Front-loads the authorization constraint and the non-acceptance caveat before payment and escrow mechanics. Sentences are long and dense, particularly the pricing/escrow block, but nearly every clause carries distinct operational information rather than 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?

With no output schema it still covers payment, auth proof binding, state transitions, refund paths and safety constraints, and it points to /api/workorder-contract for schemas and evidence bounds. The main gap is that it never indicates what a successful call returns or how delivery evidence can be confirmed afterward.

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 25%, so the schema is largely silent, yet the description only gestures at 'deliverable reference and proof hash' conceptually. It adds no format, uniqueness, or lifecycle meaning for order_id ('wo_' + 64 hex) or the required idempotency_key, despite the annotation declaring the tool non-idempotent.

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 actor, verb and resource: 'Only the named worker wallet may submit a deliverable reference and proof hash for an accepted order.' It explicitly disambiguates from sibling lifecycle tools by noting 'submission is not automatic acceptance or payment', separating it from workorder-accept and workorder-release.

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 clear preconditions: the caller must be the named worker wallet and the order must be in 'accepted' state, and it distinguishes this step from acceptance and payment. It does not explicitly name the alternative sibling tools (workorder-accept, workorder-release, workorder-dispute) an agent should use instead at the next step.

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