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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful context: the 2-of-3 threshold scheme, the Swiss Code of Obligations/DLT Act framing, and that its effect is to authorize (not execute) disbursement. But for a cryptographic signing operation it omits critical traits: whether a signature is reversible or irrevocable, idempotency, permission/auth requirements, and failure modes. The gaps are significant for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two compact sentences with no padding, and the core action is front-loaded. The informational prefix 'PHASE 3 B2A' is arguably wasted space, keeping it short of a 5.

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 and no output schema, the description must stand alone, and while it conveys the legal/threshold context well, it does not tell the agent what a successful or failed co-sign returns, whether the threshold is now met, or what happens on subsequent calls. For a high-stakes signing tool it is adequate but incomplete.

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%, so all six parameters including the cosign_role enum and contract_ref provenance are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as the default role behavior or the meaning of proof_delivery_code. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: executing 2-of-3 multisig co-signing on the escrow vault, plus the downstream purpose of authorizing disbursement. It is distinguishable from geo360_swiss_escrow_deposit and geo360_swiss_escrow_disburse, though it never names those siblings explicitly. The 'PHASE 3 B2A' prefix is internal jargon that adds no clarity.

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 phrase 'satisfies the threshold requirement (signatures 2/3) to authorize disbursement' implies this is called when the second/third signature is needed, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g., that contract_ref must originate from geo360_acommerce_settle), and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred.

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