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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it checks 'live pull-verified custody evidence and the still-FUNDED escrow' and clarifies that certain events cannot mark work funded. This goes beyond annotations and provides useful transparency, though it could detail side effects (e.g., whether state changes).

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 concise—four sentences that flow logically: purpose, parameter definition, process, and exclusions. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 complexity (5 required params, nested auth object, output schema exists), the description fails to cover all critical aspects. It omits details on auth, work_id, buyer_id, and idempotency_key. While the output schema exists, the lack of parameter descriptions undermines completeness. The description is too brief for the tool's complexity.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It only explains the 'reference' parameter as 'the Viridis cash escrow id created for the awarded buyer, seller, amount, and currency.' Other critical parameters (auth, work_id, buyer_id, idempotency_key) are not described. The idempotency_key is hinted by the annotation but not explained. This is insufficient for a tool with 5 required parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Verify exact post-award cash funding before the seller starts work.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like award_offer or submit_offer. However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings, so it misses the highest score.

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 timing ('before the seller starts work') and states what actions cannot mark work funded (buyer signature, etc.), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of other tools that might serve similar purposes.

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