Confirm you received the item (buyer)

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

The annotations already mark this as non-read-only and destructive, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it states that confirming starts the seller's escrow release window according to trust tier. It also mentions the API key requirement, though it stops short of describing error behavior if called too early.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the actor and timing first, then the consequence and the key prerequisite. Every clause contributes useful selection or invocation context.

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 state-change tool with annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential role, timing, consequence, and auth context. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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?

There is only one parameter, transaction_id, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the documentation burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail for the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb and resource: confirming physical receipt of an item by the buyer. It distinguishes the buyer-only, post-dispatch context clearly, which separates it from sibling actions like mark_dispatched or confirm_handover.

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 clear timing and eligibility conditions: buyer only, after dispatch, and only once the item is actually in hand. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool for related confirmation scenarios, but the usage context is otherwise unambiguous.

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