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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds that submission happens and escrow is involved, but omits consequential behavior: whether funds are locked at this step, auth/bond requirements, and irreversibility of the milestone escrow. Some added context, but significant gaps remain for a mutation.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and following with the return values. Every clause 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 4-param mutation with a nested 'selections' object and no output schema, the description helpfully states the return values (job ID and escrow address), partially compensating for the missing output schema. However it leaves prerequisites, escrow-funding implications, and the relationship to sibling escrow tools 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented (including assuranceTier's 0-3 semantics). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 compound verb (build and submit) and resource (capability contract) plus the key mechanism (on-chain milestone escrow). It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from near siblings like create_capability, protocol_create_escrow, or fund_escrow.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must a capability/profile exist first), and no routing to alternatives such as create_capability or fund_escrow. The agent must infer placement from the name alone.

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