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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It thoroughly states that the tool is non-invasive ('WITHOUT touching the chain') and discloses what it delivers: exact contract calls, calldata, gas estimates, money split, state transitions, and reject/refund alternates. The mention of 'Verified against live job 39' provides additional trust context. It does not cover error handling or output format, but for a dry-run tool the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 information-dense. It uses one efficient sentence with a colon-separated list of outputs, followed by two short imperative clauses ('Use before creating any escrow job. Free.'). Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description provides a comprehensive overview of the tool's outputs and context. It lists the specific data returned (contract calls, calldata, gas estimates, money split, state transitions, reject/refund alternates) and gives usage context. It could be slightly more explicit about the return structure or error behavior, but for a dry-run tool this is well-rounded.

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%, and each parameter (hours, amount, provider) has a concise, meaningful description. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific details, but the schema already provides examples and defaults (e.g., '250000 = $0.25'). This meets the baseline of 3, as the description isn't required to compensate.

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 function: 'Preview a full ERC-8183 escrow job lifecycle on Base WITHOUT touching the chain.' It specifies the exact resource (escrow job lifecycle) and the verb 'preview,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_escrow_job or the other preview_* tools. The detail about 'exact contract calls, calldata, gas estimates, money split' further clarifies its specific role.

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 description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use before creating any escrow job.' It also implies a key distinction from actual execution by emphasizing 'WITHOUT touching the chain,' which signals it is a safe, pre-execution step. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the full when/when-not guidance.

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