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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Claim a refund', implying a state change, but does not mention side effects, permission requirements (e.g., whether the caller must match claimantAddress), irreversibility, or failure modes. The eligibility hint ('eligible') is vague and does not explain verification. This is a significant gap for a financial operation.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and then provides illustrative examples in a parenthetical. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is compact and immediately clear.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (2 flat parameters, no output schema), it is a financial refund action with no annotations. The description omits critical operational details: whether the caller must be the claimant, whether the escrow must be in a refundable state, what happens on success/failure, and whether the refund is irreversible. These are essential for an agent to invoke the tool safely and correctly.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters: escrowId as 'The escrow deposit ID to refund' and claimantAddress as 'The 0x address eligible for the escrow refund'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 for 100% schema coverage is appropriate.

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 ('Claim a refund') targeting a specific resource ('escrow deposit') and provides concrete examples of when such deposits occur (registration race collisions, expired bridging operations). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like transfer_domain or marketplace tools, which involve different 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 clear context by giving examples of scenarios that lead to escrow deposits, which implies when the tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so while context is present, exclusions are missing.

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