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

Annotations only declare that this is a non-read, non-destructive mutation. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it starts a timed ack window whose length is tiered by price (10 min ≤ $10, 1 h ≤ $100, else 24 h). It still omits what happens when the window expires and any encryption-key requirements, but the timing disclosure is substantive.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler, front-loading the actor and action before the timing rule. Every clause carries 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally say what is returned or what state transition results, and it does not. The trigger and timing rules are clear, but parameter meaning and post-call outcome are left unstated.

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 0% and the description says nothing about the two required parameters, agentId and intentId. The names are suggestive (UUIDs), but there is no explanation of whether agentId is the seller's own ID or the counterparty's, which is a real ambiguity for a delivery call.

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: the Class B seller submitting ciphertext to start the buyer's ack window. The 'Class B' qualifier helps separate it from other delivery flows, though it never explicitly names which siblings (e.g. submit_delivery, reveal) cover the alternatives.

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 actor and precondition are implied ('Class B seller' submits), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no pointer to sibling tools such as submit_delivery or confirm_delivery. Usage must be inferred from the class label.

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