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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the load, and it does well: it discloses the hosted-signing model, states the key is used only for this call and never stored, and points to a manual-signing alternative. It doesn't mention idempotency, reversibility, or error behavior, but the key-security disclosure is meaningful operational context.

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?

One dense sentence with parentheticals, front-loaded with the core action and role. No wasted words, though the parenthetical chain makes it slightly harder to parse at a glance.

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 workflow tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry operational context, which it largely does via the signing/payment sequence. It stops short of describing what happens on invalid task state or whether completion is final, leaving minor gaps.

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 50%: the secret parameter is documented in the schema, while task is untyped beyond a 64-hex pattern. The description doesn't explain what the task identifier refers to or where it comes from, so it adds little parameter meaning. Baseline 3 for partial 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?

States a specific verb + resource with role scoping: 'As the buyer, mark a delivered task complete.' It's clear the caller must be the buyer and the task must be in delivered state. It doesn't explicitly contrast with ronin_deliver or ronin_accept in terms of state, but the buyer framing distinguishes it from the agent-side siblings.

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?

Provides a workflow sequence: complete, then pay via ronin_paid, and names an alternative signing path (ronin_submit) for self-signing. The 'delivered task' precondition is implied but not explicitly stated as a requirement, so the routing isn't fully airtight.

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