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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing beyond the action itself. It does not state whether submission is irreversible, what contract states are valid, who is notified, or what evidenceReference is for.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading both the actor and the action. It is concise rather than padded, though other dimensions pay the price for this brevity.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description does not supply enough information for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. Authentication via apiKey, expected output format, optional evidenceReference, and contract-state requirements are all absent.

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%, and the description only hints at two concepts ('contract' and 'completed work') without mapping them to parameter names or explaining apiKey, output, or evidenceReference. The required output parameter is left entirely ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb ('submit') and resource ('completed work for a contract') and clarifies the actor ('as the seller'), which distinguishes it from contract creation and settlement. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling verify_delivery, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 role and action imply it should be used when the seller has completed work under a contract and needs to hand it over. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling tool would be preferable, but the context is recognizable enough to imply the basic use case.

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