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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that filtering is optional but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or what a null state returns—minor gaps given the annotations and output schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action and the optional filter are communicated efficiently.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the action and filter values, with only minor omissions like ordering or default behavior when state is null.

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 has zero description coverage for the single 'state' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so well by listing the valid enum values (OPEN|FUNDED|RELEASED|REFUNDED|DISPUTED) and clarifying that the filter is optional, though it does not explicitly state that omitting state returns all escrows.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('escrows'), making the tool's core function clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like escrow_status, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 only usage hint is 'optionally filtered by state,' which describes the parameter, not when to use this tool instead of alternatives. There is no guidance on when to choose list_escrows over escrow_status or other siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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