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

With no annotations, the description carries more burden, and it usefully discloses that MaxAmount, Expiry, and AllowedContracts caveats are verified before locking. It also states the return values, escrowId and remaining delegation budget, but it omits permissions, failure behavior, and reversibility details relevant to a fund-locking mutation.

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 three tightly written sentences with the main action and prerequisites front-loaded. Every sentence adds relevant information without filler.

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?

Given a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well to mention caveat verification and return values. Still, it leaves out sibling selection guidance and mutation safety details such as permissions or what happens when caveat verification fails.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little context, such as delegationId coming from a prior grant and amount being required, but it does not materially extend the semantics already provided by 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 specific action: lock funds in escrow using an ERC-7710 delegated budget. It distinguishes this from a generic escrow by naming the delegation mechanism, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as pabandi_escrow_lock or pabandi_start_escrow.

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?

It gives prerequisite context by stating the tool requires a delegationId from a prior grant and an amount. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus escrow-related siblings like pabandi_escrow_lock, pabandi_start_escrow, or pabandi_escrow_create_child.

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