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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral consequence (releasing escrowed funds to the seller), the required precondition (escrowStatus Shipped), and the auto-finalise timer behavior if never called. It stops short of describing error handling or idempotency, but the critical financial effect is transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action and effect, the precondition and urgency, and the fallback behavior. The most important information is front-loaded.

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-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, this description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to call it, what it requires, and what happens if it isn't called. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 the schema already explains orderId and apiKey. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed at the schema baseline of 3.

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 states a specific action (confirms arrival) and its concrete effect (releases escrowed funds), making the tool's role unambiguous. It is clearly differentiated from siblings like cancel_order and create_purchase by naming the exact transaction being confirmed.

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?

It gives a clear precondition ('Requires the order's escrowStatus to be Shipped') and explicit timing guidance ('Call promptly once delivery is verified'), plus the consequence of not calling. It doesn't name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is sufficient to route an agent correctly.

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