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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact, the API-key requirement, but says nothing about what the revision does to the order (deadline, escrow, state transition) or whether repeated calls are rejected.

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 short sentences, no padding, with the core action front-loaded. Every clause carries information.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema and no annotation detail about side effects, the description is thin: it omits what happens to the order after a revision request and any conditions that would cause failure. It is minimally usable but leaves real gaps.

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 0% for both required parameters, so the description carries the burden — yet it only obliquely gestures at them ('feedback', 'delivered work'). It adds no meaning about the feedback length limit, format, or how order_id should be supplied beyond the schema's UUID pattern.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Send delivered work back to the seller with feedback'), which is specific enough to separate it from approve_order or open_dispute. However, it never names or contrasts with those siblings, leaving the agent to infer the routing itself.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'delivered work' — the agent can infer this applies after a delivery when the work is unsatisfactory. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. approve_order/open_dispute, and no statement of prerequisites beyond the API key.

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