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

The description richly explains behavior beyond annotations: the platform calculates split fees, returns a fee breakdown and wallet status, and lists fallback actions if balance is insufficient. It also notes authentication requirements and error conditions. This far exceeds the sparse annotation data (all hints false).

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 dense but every sentence adds value. It opens with a critical warning, then clearly sequences the action, preconditions, mechanism, return data, fallback options, and next steps. No fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (multi-step funding flow, preconditions, fallbacks), no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description provides a complete operational picture. It covers prerequisites, error cases, response contents, alternatives, and follow-up actions, leaving little ambiguity for an agent.

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 already covers both parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that taskId must reference a task in Draft/Quoted status with payoutAmount and settlementMode='escrow', and that apiKey is the authentication mechanism. This goes beyond simple schema text.

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 function: 'Request a fee calculation for a task — first step of the escrow funding flow.' It uses a specific verb ('request') and resource ('task quote'), and distinguishes itself from direct-settlement tasks and sibling tools like fund_task and publish_task.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: escrow flow only, preconditions (Draft/Quoted status, payoutAmount set, settlementMode='escrow'), and warnings against calling on direct-settlement or already-funded tasks. It also names alternatives (FundViaPsp, checkout_wallet_deposit, get_bank_transfer_details) and next steps (fund_task, publish_task).

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