Build SAP Escrow V2 Create Transaction

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a hosted-safe unsigned builder, output is not submitted or signed by hosted SAP MCP, keypair bytes never leave the user machine, and it defaults to DisputeWindow settlementSecurity=2 while rejecting SelfReport/0. This provides essential security and workflow transparency.

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 somewhat repetitive (e.g., the phrase 'Hosted-safe unsigned builder for create_escrow_v2' appears twice). While it is front-loaded with key info, it could be more concise by removing 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?

Given the complexity (13 parameters, 0 required) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the workflow, security model, and defaults. However, it does not summarize the output schema or return value, which would be helpful for the agent.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating defaults (e.g., settlementSecurity defaults to 2) and emphasizing security aspects (depositorWallet signs locally). It provides context not captured in the schema descriptions.

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 it's a 'Hosted-safe unsigned builder for create_escrow_v2', with the specific verb 'build' and resource 'create transaction'. It distinguishes from siblings like sap_create_escrow_v2 by emphasizing the preview-and-finalize workflow.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool from hosted SAP MCP, preview the result, then call local sap_payments_finalize_transaction with submit:true. It also warns against creating temporary signing scripts or reading keypair JSON. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool.

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