Zap-v2 Escrow Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds real context: null when nothing is open, what fields are shown (mode, crank progress, readyToClose, expiry, failure reasons), and explicit auth/ownership behavior ('external keypair does not change escrow ownership', 'AUTH never permits an unrelated wallet').

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?

Front-loaded with verb, resource and route, then value details, then edge-case/auth notes. Dense with little waste, though the two trailing auth sentences add length that only marginally aids invocation.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the null case, plus auth constraints. It is sufficiently complete for a read-only status tool, leaving only minor gaps like pagination (not applicable) or error behavior.

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 0%, so the description must carry param meaning, and it does explain the optional `user` parameter's semantics (omit to inspect the app wallet) beyond the schema merely marking it non-required. `vault` is only implied via the route, keeping it short of a perfect 5.

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 (Get) plus resource (decoded zap-v2 escrow) plus scope (vault, user), with the concrete API route. An agent can distinguish it from zap_v2_cancel and zap_v2_update_envelope without inspecting 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?

Gives clear context for the primary call and a notable usage variant (omit `user` to inspect the assigned app wallet, including existing escrows after revoke). It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when-not-to-use, but the usage is unambiguous for this read operation.

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