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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying that it 'Marks status delivered' and is tied to an escrow purchase. Since annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, the description supplements them without contradiction.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with '[Sell]', and every word serves a purpose. It is concise and well-structured without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core action and effect, including the escrow context, and the schema and annotations provide additional structure. However, it lacks details on parameter interaction (e.g., whether 'url' or 'body' is required) and post-delivery behavior, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, the description clarifies that the tool is for submitting a digital deliverable, which maps to 'url' and 'body', but it does not explain 'purchaseId' or 'contentType'. This leaves some parameter meaning unexplained beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('submits') and resource ('digital deliverable for a purchase in escrow'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like confirm_delivery by specifying the seller's action. It also notes the effect ('Marks status delivered'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 '[Sell]' prefix provides some context for when to use the tool, but there is no explicit mention of alternatives or exclusions. It does not reference related tools like confirm_delivery or get_delivery, leaving the usage boundaries implied rather than explicit.

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