fund_escrow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that funds lock at the platform node without settling, that the escrow state transitions to 'funded', and that the caller must poll until funded. Missing are error/idempotency behavior and any permission or pre-requisite (existing escrow) notes.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return value and then the action sequence; no filler or repetition.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the return payload (funding state, payment_request, status), the state transition, and the polling requirement. The shape of the returned object and failure cases are left unspecified, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

One parameter (escrow_id) with 0% schema description coverage; the description never defines it, though its meaning is self-evident from context. It does name the response field payment_request, but that is an output, not a parameter, so it adds no input semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns an escrow's funding state plus the BOLT11 hold invoice, and explains the fund flow (pay payment_request, funds lock at the platform node). It is clearly distinct in content from escrow_status, though it never names a sibling to route the agent away from.

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?

It gives concrete usage instructions: pay the payment_request from your own Lightning wallet, and poll this tool until status=funded. That is clear context for invoking it, but there is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. escrow_status or open_escrow) to disambiguate.

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