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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the auth requirement (buyer-wallet login) and that the server verifies the funding tx on-chain, which is real behavioral context. It omits what happens on verification failure, idempotency/repeat-call behavior, and whether the linkage is reversible.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the auth precondition and the verification behavior. No filler, though slightly more explanation than strictly needed.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, and verification but says nothing about the response, error cases, or idempotency. Adequate but with clear gaps for a state-changing operation.

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 80%, so the schema already documents txHash, orderId, and serviceId in detail. The description only loosely ties 'funding transaction' to txHash and adds no format/syntax guidance for chainId or sessionToken beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('link') and resource (an on-chain funded order to its service/listing) and names the platform. It is distinguishable from create_order, which funds/creates, and from get_order_status, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with 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?

The description implies the preconditions ('an order you funded on-chain', 'requires login with the buyer wallet'), which tells the agent this is a post-funding step. However, it never names create_order/createAndFundOrder as the prerequisite step or states when not to use it, leaving the sequencing to inference.

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