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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real context beyond them: an authorization restriction to payer/payee, result ordering, and a specific failure mode (501 feature_unavailable tied to a feature flag). It does not describe the shape of returned submissions or pagination edge behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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 short sentences with no filler: purpose first, then access and ordering, then the operational caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information an agent needs.

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 paginated read tool with no output schema and a simple three-parameter schema, the description covers purpose, authorization, ordering, and the feature-flag failure mode. The main remaining gap is the return payload shape, which is not documented anywhere since no output schema exists.

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 67%, with limit and cursor well documented in the schema itself, but escrow_id has no schema description. The description only implies escrow_id via "an escrow's" and adds no syntax or format detail, so it does not compensate meaningfully for the uncovered parameter.

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 and resource ("List an escrow's submissions") and adds scope qualifiers (payer and payee only, newest first). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as list_deliverables or get_escrow, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clear conditions for use: caller must be the payer or payee, results are newest first, and the endpoint returns 501 while stand-alone escrow is disabled via ESCROW_API_ENABLED. It lacks an explicit pointer to an alternative tool when the caller is neither payer nor payee, so no exclusions-with-alternatives credit.

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