Record delivery on chain (provider)

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that no funds transfer, that signing uses the local wallet, that the relay to the contract is done by Agoreum, and that the call is effectively idempotent (nothing is signed if already recorded). It does not cover what happens on deadline expiry or what the call returns, but the core mutation profile is clear.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the actor and operation, followed by the financial non-effect, the timing constraint, and the sibling overlap. No filler; the only slight cost is that the final sentence about deliver_order requires the reader to infer its implication.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool with no annotations, the description supplies the essential context: safety (no money moves), precondition (before deadline), idempotency, and the overlapping sibling. Only failure/success reporting is unaddressed, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 single order_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — the reader must infer that the order is identified by order_id from the schema's required field and UUID pattern. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema still constrains the type and format, but the description adds no meaning beyond it.

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?

Names the actor (provider), the action (sign the delivery statement with the local wallet) and the mechanism (Agoreum relays it to the contract). It also separates itself from the sibling agoreum_deliver_order by framing this as the explicit provider-side primative, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 real usage conditions: it must happen before the delivery deadline, it is a no-op when delivery is already recorded, and agoreum_deliver_order already performs this when a wallet is configured. The last sentence stops just short of stating the decision rule explicitly (e.g. 'prefer deliver_order unless you need to sign outside that flow'), which keeps it from a 5.

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