Build SAP Escrow V2 Finalize Transaction

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

Description discloses that the output is unsigned and not submitted by the MCP, and that the transaction needs local signing. Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the workflow and security precautions (no signing scripts, no keypair reading). However, it doesn't explicitly state the effect on state (the eventual finalization will modify on-chain state).

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?

4-5 sentences, each adds value: core purpose, usage condition, behavioral note, and security warning. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.

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 5 parameters, no required ones, and existing output schema, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, behavioral transparency, and links to next step tool. It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool.

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% with each parameter having a description. The description does not add per-parameter detail beyond the schema, but provides overall context (e.g., purpose of each wallet). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already defines parameters clearly.

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 the verb 'build' and resource 'finalize_settlement' for SAP Escrow V2. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sap_escrow_build_deposit_transaction, sap_escrow_build_settle_transaction, etc., by specifying it's for finalization after dispute window.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'after the dispute window has elapsed and a pending settlement exists'. Provides clear next steps: 'Preview it, then call local sap_payments_finalize_transaction with submit:true and confirm:true'. Also warns against creating signing scripts or reading keypair JSON.

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