guild_escrow_open

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

The description discloses that credits are locked, a small Guild fee is deducted, and an escrow object with risk score is returned. It does not mention failure modes, refunds, cancellation, or dispute handling, and there are no annotations to fill that gap.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the example is helpful for understanding argument order. A few sentences are somewhat redundant, but overall the description is reasonably concise and well structured.

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?

It covers the core action, the return value, and the recommended follow-up tool, which is decent. Yet for a financial escrow operation it omits important context such as error conditions, fee details, and how it relates to preflight or payment-safety tools.

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?

The example and prose identify issuer_api_key, worker_id, amount, and capability, but the schema provides no descriptions. The meaning of especially 'capability' is left unclear, and constraints like positive amount or valid worker are not explained.

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 clearly states that the tool commissions work by funding an escrow, and it distinguishes this action from related release and payment tools. The first sentence gives a specific verb, resource, and overall purpose, making the tool's intent obvious.

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?

It explains the escrow workflow and tells the agent to call guild_escrow_release after accepting work, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related tools like guild_paid_operations or guild_preflight.

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