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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the DB path returns milestones and disputes, while the address path reads live from the blockchain. That data-source distinction is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations don't convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the branching input guidance. Nothing wasted and no redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers input modes and what the DB path returns. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it doesn't mention return shape for the on-chain path or any error behavior for invalid IDs.

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% and the schema already describes escrowId as 'DB escrow ID or on-chain contract address (0x...)'. The description's dual-mode explanation largely reiterates the schema, adding the parenthetical about milestones/disputes for the DB mode but no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get escrow details') that clearly states what the tool does, and it explains the two input modes (DB record vs on-chain). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_escrow_chain_state, get_escrow_dispute, and get_escrow_events, so sibling differentiation 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?

The description gives clear guidance on how to choose between the two input modes (DB ID vs EVM address), which is a form of usage guidance. However, there is no comparison against alternative escrow-reading siblings, so an agent must infer when this tool is preferred over get_escrow_chain_state or get_escrow_dispute.

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