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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral detail (e.g., what it returns, edge cases). It does not contradict the annotations, and the read-only nature is consistent. Given the bar is lower with annotations, the description is adequate but adds minimal value beyond the 'Check' verb.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It efficiently conveys the purpose and leaves no ambiguity about the core function. Every word earns its place.

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 simple capability check with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose. One could argue it should mention the return type (likely boolean) or the optional nature of `escrowAddress`, but the tool name and the context of checking a capability make the expected output reasonably clear. The single-parameter schema and the tool's role among peers make this adequately complete for an agent to call it effectively.

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%, and the schema already describes `escrowAddress` as 'Escrow address.' The description does not provide additional context about parameter usage, formatting, or conditions. Since the schema carries the parameter semantics, the description need not elaborate, but it adds no extra meaning either. Baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('current escrow deployment') and clarifies the subject ('inline oracle configs'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like peer_oracle_validate_feeds (validation of feeds) and peer_vault_oracle_config_updates (updates), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no explicit conditions, and no mention of exclusions. For a capability check, one might expect a note that it is a prerequisite before configuring inline oracles, but that context is absent. The tool name and description imply a simple check, but the lack of any usage context leaves the agent to infer applicability.

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