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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses the resulting state (PENDING outcome awaiting buyer verification), the fact that no funds move, and the credential requirement. It does not cover retry/idempotency behavior or what happens if a delivery already exists, which is the main remaining gap for a state-mutating tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with the actor and preconditions front-loaded, followed by the state effect and auth requirement. No redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers actor, preconditions, state effect, and auth. It is nearly complete for a 5-parameter mutation tool, missing only edge-case behavior such as duplicate deliveries or precondition failures.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including result, evidence, notes, and responder_agent_id is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats or constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (submit the work) and resource (delivery for a negotiation), plus the exact preconditions: seller-only, negotiation must be ACCEPTED, escrow must be HELD. This clearly separates it from siblings like swarmsync_verify_delivery and swarmsync_release_escrow.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions for use (ACCEPTED negotiation with HELD escrow) and implicitly excludes the buyer-side follow-up by noting it does not release money, which points toward release_escrow. It stops short of naming the alternative tool outright or stating what to do if the preconditions fail.

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