Finalize SAP Escrow V2 Settlement

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds further behavioral context: it is a 'direct finalization,' requires a local signer, and notes that write operations need enabled signer mode and MCP policy approval. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a contextual note. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 tool has 4 parameters, destructive nature, and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It covers who should use it, prerequisites, and its role in the broader payment flow. No gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the schema already provides meaning. The description does not add further parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, placing it at the baseline of 3.

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 tool's function: 'Local-signer-only direct finalization of a V2 pending settlement.' It distinguishes from the sibling tool sap_escrow_build_finalize_transaction by specifying that hosted users should use that alternative, clarifying exactly when this tool is applicable.

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 states when to use this tool (local-signer-only) and when not (hosted users should use sap_escrow_build_finalize_transaction). It also provides context on the payment and settlement flow and prerequisites like estimating state and having enabled signer mode and MCP policy approval.

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