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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the live on-chain solvency check, including wallet amount and payment authorization validity, and notes the token requirement. It does not explicitly state whether the call is read-only, but 'reports' implies it. This is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the function, providing usage timing and rationale, and noting the token prerequisite. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool reports (status and solvency). It covers the key scenario and prerequisites. However, it does not detail the exact output format or error conditions, which would be helpful for a monitoring tool.

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 schema already describes both parameters (escrow_id and token) with 100% coverage. The description echoes the token requirement but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 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?

The description clearly states the tool reports an escrow's status and performs a live solvency check on the buyer. It is specific about what it does, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like escrow_get_quote or contract_get, so it misses the top score.

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 advises calling it 'while you work' to catch buyer defunding or authorization cancellation, providing clear contextual guidance. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit exclusion or alternative naming.

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