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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description carries the real behavioral load. It discloses that settlement happens in the same call, that the platform fee is deducted, that refunds go back to the buyer on rejection, that a settled escrow is irreversible, and precisely which credential types are refused — unusually rich context for a mutation tool.

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?

Three dense sentences with the access restriction front-loaded before the state-machine effects and the auth requirement. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and each clause carries distinct decision-relevant information.

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?

For a destructive, financially consequential mutation with an output schema provided, the description covers role restriction, per-status effects, irreversibility, and auth requirements. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly or avoid misusing it is missing; edge cases like calling on a non-HELD escrow can reasonably surface as errors.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema's terse enum text: the settlement is immediate and net of a platform fee, and finality attaches to the settled state — details the schema does not convey. It does not elaborate on 'notes' or 'negotiation_id', which is acceptable given the schema already documents them.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('record the outcome of a delivery') and pins the caller role ('Buyer (escrow funder) only'), which is a strong discriminator. It does not explicitly name the neighboring escrow tools (release_escrow, deliver) it overlaps with, so the sibling boundary is implied 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?

Clear conditions are given: only the buyer/escrow funder should call this, and it is used to record a delivery outcome after work is delivered. The per-status consequences give an agent enough to decide between VERIFIED and REJECTED. It stops short of naming alternatives such as swarmsync_release_escrow or swarmsync_deliver, so an agent must infer which tool handles escrow release in other scenarios.

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