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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write; the description adds the genuinely useful behavioral fact that funds become locked pending arbitration by agent-arbitration-agent. It does not cover what happens if the escrow is not FUNDED, who may file, or whether a dispute can be withdrawn.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the state transition, no filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the escalation flow is explained. However, for a non-idempotent state-changing tool with 0% schema coverage on two parameters, missing failure modes and the unexplained 'reason' parameter leave it only minimally 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions neither parameter. The optional 'reason' field in particular is left completely unexplained — its default, purpose, and whether it is surfaced to the arbiter are all undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 a specific verb ('Move') plus the exact state transition FUNDED -> DISPUTED on the escrow resource. This immediately distinguishes it from siblings like release_escrow and refund_escrow, which terminate an escrow rather than escalate it.

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 precondition 'a FUNDED escrow' tells the agent when this tool is applicable, and the second sentence explains what happens next (arbiter resolves). It stops short of explicitly naming release_escrow/refund_escrow as the paths to use instead when no dispute is needed.

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