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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls well short. For an escrow-initialization operation it never states whether the action is irreversible, what permissions or signatures are needed to call it, whether funds move immediately, or what the resulting contract state is.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste or redundancy. It is well-sized, though it is arguably too terse for the complexity of the operation rather than padded.

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 financial escrow contract initialization with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits the role of the third (non-buyer/seller) key in the 2-of-3 scheme, prerequisites, and post-initialization state, none of which is recoverable from structured fields.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter (pubkeys, contract_ref, gross_amount_eur, session/sub/settlement IDs). The description adds no field-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 for high coverage is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Initializes') and a specific resource ('2-of-3 Swiss multi-signature escrow contract'), which is more informative than the bare name. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like geo360_swiss_escrow_cosign and geo360_swiss_escrow_disburse, so the agent cannot tell which escrow stage this represents without inferring from the name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus geo360_swiss_escrow_cosign, geo360_swiss_escrow_disburse, or geo360_acommerce_settle (which the contract_ref schema references). The 'Swiss Code of Obligations' phrase is legal context, not usage routing, so the agent is left to guess at sequencing.

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