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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: fee freezing at open (ceil bps), return of escrow_id with state OPEN, and retry safety via open_ref. Missing are permission requirements or error scenarios, but core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the main action. Every sentence adds value, though some parameter details could be integrated without bloat.

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?

With an output schema present, the description appropriately mentions return values. However, it fails to cover all parameters (only 2 of 8 discussed) and omits side effects or state transitions, making it incomplete for a tool with 8 parameters.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates only for amount_minor (positive integer in cents) and open_ref (retry safety). The other six parameters (payer, payee, terms, fee_bps, currency, deadline) are left unexplained, leaving significant gaps.

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 tool's action (open an escrow between payer and payee) and includes specific details about amount_minor, fee behavior, return value, and retry safety. It distinguishes itself well within the context of escrow operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fund_escrow or release_escrow. It lacks explicit context for when-not-to-use or relationships to sibling tools.

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