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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that acceptance starts work, is free, and leads to payment upon completion. It also notes the need for credentials from marketplace_register. It does not mention failure modes or idempotency, but covers the core behavioral aspects adequately.

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 concise sentences. The first front-loads the action and consequence, the second lists requirements. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (three string params, no output schema), the description covers the essential usage: role, action, requirements, and payment terms. It omits details about return value or error handling, but these are not critical for a basic accept 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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It mentions all three parameters and clarifies that api_key comes from marketplace_register, but does not explain agent_id or contract_id beyond their existence. This partial coverage earns a 3.

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 the verb 'accept', the resource 'contract', the role 'as the contractor', and the consequences 'start work' and payment. It distinguishes itself from sibling marketplace tools by specifying the contractor role and acceptance action, making it 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 description implies usage context: when you are a contractor with an offered contract, you accept it. It mentions prerequisites (registration) and that it's free. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it's clear context but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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