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

With no annotations, the description discloses the core behavior—completing a deal and releasing payment—which is important for a high-stakes mutation. However, it omits side effects, failure conditions, reversibility, or response details, leaving notable transparency gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every part earns its place by stating the action and the consequence.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description captures the primary purpose and the payer constraint. It does not describe return values or post-conditions, but given the low complexity and absence of an output schema, it is nearly 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?

The schema descriptions already cover both parameters (100%) with clear, meaningful descriptions such as 'Agent ID completing the deal (must be the payer)'. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mark'), clearly identifies the resource (a deal), and states the key effect (release payment to the payee). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_payment_deal, list_deals, and approve_job.

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 clearly implies this is the final step in a deal's lifecycle, and the schema further constrains usage by requiring the agent to be the payer. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as resolve_stake or approve_job, nor state when not to use it.

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