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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully defines what 'credited' means and implies a non-mutating balance query, but it never explicitly states read-only behavior, says nothing about per-chain scoping or return shape (amount plus token?), and gives no guidance on empty/zero balances.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the 'Escrow v3' scope, then the resource meaning, then the next action. No filler and nothing to trim.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers intent and the follow-up workflow, but leaves chainId and the returned value's composition (which token, decimals, per-chain breakdown) unexplained. Adequate to call, not complete enough to interpret the result confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it only partly does: 'a wallet has credited' implies walletAddress, but no address format is given and chainId is never mentioned at all. Half the parameters remain undocumented in both structured fields and prose.

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 precisely what is returned: the amount of stablecoin credited to a wallet in Escrow v3, enumerating the credit sources (seller payouts, buyer refunds, dispute splits). It also routes to the follow-up sibling prepare_withdraw, so an agent can distinguish it from the prepare_* action tools without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'ready to withdraw with prepare_withdraw' establishes the read-then-act workflow and names the exact alternative to use next. It does not state exclusions (e.g., use a different tool for uncredited or pending funds), so it falls short of the full when/when-not bar.

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