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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds context: the tool is for empty escrows, requires enabled signer mode and MCP policy approval, and mentions estimation and state fetching. However, much of the execution guidance is generic boilerplate not specific to this tool, slightly reducing transparency value.

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 contains excessive boilerplate about 'SAP MCP execution guidance' (pricing, routing, signer boundary) that is repeated across multiple SAP tools and is not specific to this function. The first sentence is effective, but the rest is verbose and could be shortened.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are already documented. With only two non-required parameters and a straightforward action (close empty escrow), the description covers the essential context: local signer, empty condition, and policy requirements. The boilerplate adds noise but doesn't omit critical details.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning all two parameters (nonce, agentWallet) are described in the schema. The description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond the generic SAP context. Thus, the description provides no extra semantic value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Local-signer-only direct close for an empty V2 escrow.' It distinguishes from the sibling tool sap_escrow_build_close_transaction, which is for hosted users. The verb 'close' and resource 'V2 escrow' are specific.

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?

Explicitly states 'Local-signer-only' and 'Hosted users should call sap_escrow_build_close_transaction and finalize locally,' providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with an alternative tool named.

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