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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is free, that it requires authentication, and crucially the consequence of inaction ('accept in time or the buyer's escrow is returned'). It still leaves the read-only nature and return shape implicit, so not a perfect 5.

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?

Front-loads the differentiating 'seller path' clause and packs purpose, consequences, cost, and auth into three tight sentences with no filler. Slightly dense but every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-param read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what the caller gets back, the auth requirement, where credentials come from, and cost. Missing only the read-only guarantee and any output structure, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names both required parameters and their origin ('from marketplace_register'), which is genuinely useful, but adds no format or type detail beyond that. Partial compensation for two undocumented params.

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 ('see what you have sold and what is still waiting') and explicitly frames it as the seller path ('not a buyer step'), which separates it from buyer-oriented siblings. The listed contents (pending contracts, credit entries) pin down exactly what the resource is.

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 'Seller path -- not a buyer step' framing gives clear context for when this applies, and it ties the call to a concrete goal (checking sales and pending obligations). It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives such as marketplace_my_services, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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