Report a shopper or escrow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not carrying the whole load. It still adds real value: it explains that one signed message is sent, that no funds move and the order is otherwise unchanged, and that the operator may remove the reported party.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and target before the evidence and side-effect details. No filler, though the parenthetical examples add some length.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers outcome effects (no funds move, order unchanged, operator may delist) for a moderate-complexity action. It omits only repeat-call behavior and failure handling for an explicitly non-idempotent tool.

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%, with the order_id format sourced to request_quote/list_orders already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that the order's signed messages are attached as evidence; it adds no new per-parameter semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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 specific verb (report), a specific target (the order's shopper or escrow), and the recipient (the operator that listed them). This is distinguishable from siblings like open_dispute or review_ruling without opening any 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?

The evidence examples ('a dishonest ruling, a quote that failed validation, no delivery') imply when this tool applies, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given. An agent must infer that this is the escalation path distinct from open_dispute.

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