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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the exact fee formula (1% min $0.10 max $25.00), that the fee is paid by the buyer when escrow opens, and that it's non-refundable if the deal falls through. It also clarifies the quote is non-binding ('without committing to anything'), though it does not spell out the response 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 description is three focused sentences, each carrying unique information: purpose and non-commitment, fee details, and practical pairing with trust_check_wallet. No filler or repetition of schema information.

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 simple one-parameter quote tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it gives the purpose, exact cost, payment timing, refund policy, account requirements, and a clear use case with a sibling tool. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it 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 schema already documents amount_usd clearly, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining how the fee depends on the amount (1% with min/max), which directly ties the single parameter to the tool's output. This raises it above the baseline.

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 purpose: it prices escrow protection for a payment to an untrusted counterparty without committing to anything. It distinguishes itself from related escrow tools like escrow_open by emphasizing the no-commitment quote nature and by pairing with trust_check_wallet.

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 explicitly says to pair this with trust_check_wallet: if that returns a low score, this tool tells you what protection costs. It also notes 'Needs no account,' which provides practical usage context for when this can be used.

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