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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description's added value is the note that it returns a 'public-safe escrow summary' — a meaningful disclosure that the response is redacted/public-facing rather than the full record. It stops short of covering error behavior for unknown or inaccessible IDs.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core action (check status by ID) is front-loaded before the return-value note.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the annotations cover safety. The definition is nearly complete for such a simple read tool; only failure modes (invalid or unknown escrow ID) are unaddressed.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents escrow_id fully. The description adds no format, example, or constraint beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of a SwarmSync escrow by ID', which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the mutation sibling swarmsync_release_escrow, so the read-vs-write distinction is left to annotations rather than stated.

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 phrase 'for AP2 payment tracking' hints at the context of use, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative (release_escrow) that also operates on an escrow ID.

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