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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses auth requirements (Bearer or X-API-Key), guest-call restrictions, and the preferred escrow parameter. It does not contradict readOnlyHint=false or idempotentHint=true; the only real omission is what the API returns on success, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 compact and front-loaded, using four short sentences to cover purpose, auth, escrow selection, guest policy, and the REST endpoint. There is no redundant filler.

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 relatively simple three-parameter tool, the description covers the key invocation context: authentication, session prerequisite, escrow identifiers, and the HTTP endpoint. It is slightly incomplete in not spelling out whether open_tx_hash or proof_escrow_id must be supplied and what a successful response contains, but these are modest gaps.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 33%, the description must compensate, and it adds useful guidance by marking open_tx_hash as preferred over proof_escrow_id. However, it does not explain the relationship between the two optional fields, whether one is effectively required, or their format beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action—attaching a buyer-funded proof escrow to an opened data session—and adds an exact REST endpoint. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like data_session_fund or data_session_funding_package; the distinction is only implied by the tool name and the word 'attach-escrow'.

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?

It gives clear prerequisites: an agent API key, an opened data session, and a buyer-funded proof escrow, and explicitly says the operation is not guest-callable. It also suggests data_preview as a free first step, but it does not name sibling alternatives or state when to choose this over data_session_fund/funding_package.

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