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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful caveats beyond the schema: the treasury role is an owner-confirmed declaration, not a verified fact, and escrow existence does not establish who controls the destination account. That interpretive framing is real added value, though it stops short of describing pagination or output shape.

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 deprecation notice and alternative are front-loaded in the first clause, which is the most important routing information. Subsequent sentences are dense but each carries content (scope, caveats). Slightly long, but no 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so field-by-field (amount, unlock date, cancel date, total escrowed, share of supply). Combined with the deprecation routing and the control caveat, an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description instead specifies the returned field semantics, which 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 specific resource and scope: time-locked project-declared treasury ASTEROID escrows on the XRP Ledger, with the exact fields returned (amount, finish-after, cancel-after, totals, share of supply). It also names the sibling get_escrow_schedule and how it differs, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly marks itself deprecated and routes the agent to get_escrow_schedule, explaining that the successor adds per-escrow locked/releasable/expired state. This is a clear when-not-this-tool plus a named alternative, leaving nothing to inference.

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