sap_fetch_escrow_v2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-only fetch operation, which implies non-destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose error handling, return behavior (e.g., null vs error), or any authentication requirements. Adequate but minimal.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the two search modes without any redundant or extraneous 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?

The description is adequate for a simple fetch operation but does not specify what happens on parameter conflicts (e.g., both escrowPda and agentPda provided) or the return format. Given no output schema, the agent would benefit from more detail on expected output.

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 adds value by grouping parameters into two logical search modes, explaining the conditional usage (e.g., 'nonce used with agentPda and depositor'). This goes beyond mere schema repetition.

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 action ('Fetch') and the resource ('V2 escrow') with two distinct search methods: by escrow PDA or by agent PDA, depositor, and nonce. This distinctly separates it from the V1 fetch and other fetch tools.

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 provides a clear two-mode usage pattern: using escrowPda directly or using agentPda with depositor and nonce. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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