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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that it requires a buyer-signed outcome and only applies to independently verified jobs, but does not elaborate on side effects, failure modes, or rate limits.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded. Every sentence adds specific, non-redundant information about purpose, constraints, and what does not qualify.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description covers the main business rules but lacks details on key parameters like auth, would_buy_again, and idempotency_key behavior. It is adequate but not 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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for only 2 of 7 parameters (outcome and note_sha256). It explains outcome values and optional note digest but omits auth, work_id, buyer_id, idempotency_key, and would_buy_again, leaving significant gaps.

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 reports a buyer-signed outcome for an independently verified paid job, specifying the allowed outcome values and what does not qualify. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle delivery, attestation, or messaging.

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 explains when to use the tool (for independently verified paid jobs) and what does not count (direct payments, self-claims, missing receipt), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it in favor of other tools.

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