escrow_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return contents (status, amounts, deadline, payout state, last error), which is useful since there is no output schema, but it never states that the call is read-only, whether it requires authorization, or whether it errors when the escrow does not exist.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the returned fields listed inline. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical is slightly ambiguous.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields is the right move. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent still lacks the when-to-call context needed to pick this over the other escrow tools.

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 single parameter escrow_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains the identifier, its format, or where it comes from. The '(either party)' phrase is the only hint about the ID's scope, leaving the schema to carry an undocumented parameter.

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?

Names a specific resource (one escrow) and enumerates what 'full state' means: status, amounts, deadline, payout state, last error. It is distinguishable from the sibling bond_status by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus open_escrow, fund_escrow, release_escrow, or bond_status. The '(either party)' note hints at access scope but gives no usage context or exclusions.

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