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

With no annotations, the description should detail behavioral traits. It mentions the arbiter resolution but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or state constraints. The description is vague on what happens if the escrow is not in FUNDED state.

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?

Two concise sentences. First sentence states the primary action; second provides follow-up context. No filler words.

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 state transition, the description covers the main effect but omits prerequisites (e.g., escrow must be funded) and error conditions. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but more context would improve completeness.

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%, yet the description provides no parameter explanations. The reason parameter is optional but its purpose is not described. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Move a FUNDED escrow to DISPUTED.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like refund_escrow and release_escrow by specifying the transition to disputed state.

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 implies usage when an escrow is funded and needs to be disputed. It does not explicitly exclude other states or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for the intended use.

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