Build SAP Escrow V2 Settlement Transaction

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a builder (not executable), the agent wallet signs locally, DisputeWindow escrows create a pending PDA, CoSigned escrows may need coSigner. This goes beyond annotations, though some details (e.g., whether the tool itself affects state) could be clearer.

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 concise, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: builder identity, local signing, escrow type differences, and finalization instructions. No redundant or filler content.

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 6 fully-described parameters, output schema present, and detailed workflow instructions (preview, finalize with flags), the description covers essential usage. It lacks details on error scenarios or expected output format, but given the output schema exists, completeness is adequate.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning for coSigner ('when the escrow account requires it') but otherwise does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 builds an unsigned settlement transaction for escrow V2 ('Hosted-safe unsigned builder for settle_calls_v2'). It distinguishes between DisputeWindow and CoSigned escrows and provides context about the output not being submitted. Purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit instructions: preview, then call local sap_payments_finalize_transaction with submit:true and confirm:true. It warns against creating signing scripts or reading keypair JSON. However, it lacks explicit comparisons to sibling escrow builders (e.g., build_deposit, build_withdraw) or mention of when to choose settlement over others.

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