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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the hash verification mechanism, that payment is released on a match, and that a seller_token is required. It does not cover failure modes or what happens on mismatch, but the core behavioral workflow is transparent.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by the mechanism and a critical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

The description gives enough to use the tool correctly: role, inputs, and expected outcome. It doesn't describe return values or edge cases, but with no output schema and a well-defined process, this is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context: delivery_hash must be independently recomputable by the buyer, and seller_token is the one given by the buyer. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Hands off finished work against an escrow, as the seller.' It clearly identifies the seller role and distinguishes this from buyer-side confirm tools like escrow_confirm_delivery and from contract_submit_delivery for contract escrows.

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 clearly sets the context: use when you are the seller finishing work on an escrow. It also states a prerequisite (seller_token) and warns not to start work without it. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the role framing and sibling tool names imply when not to use it.

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