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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, readOnly=false. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond them: no escrow, no bank verification, no automatic release, i.e. this records a claim rather than moving funds. That is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure an agent needs, though reversibility/repeat-call consequences are unstated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the critical gating condition followed by the effect scope. No wasted words and the most safety-relevant information comes first.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger condition and the limits of its effects, and annotations carry the safety profile. It leaves out what happens downstream (e.g. relation to set_payment_link or mark_payment_paid), a minor gap.

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 67% and the description adds nothing about id, actorId, or confirm. The schema documents id and actorId (including how to obtain actorId), and confirm is self-documenting via const:true, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate — no extra meaning is contributed by the description.

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 ('Record a seller declaration') and clarifies the semantic scope (declaration only, not a verified payment). It distinguishes itself from a mere 'paid' action by framing it as a seller-side declaration, though it does not explicitly name the sibling mark_payment_paid.

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 an explicit, emphasized precondition: 'ONLY after the user explicitly confirms receipt in their external account.' That is a clear when-to-use rule. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the gating condition is strong.

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