open_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 well: it discloses the hold-invoice (non-settling) semantics, the BOLT11 payment_request return, the escrow_unconfigured failure mode, and the 1% seller-side fee mechanics. It omits auth/permission requirements and any timeout behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then return value, then failure mode, then fees — each sentence adds distinct information with no repetition. Dense but well-structured for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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 covers the essentials: what is created, what is returned (BOLT11 payment_request, net_payout_sats, fee_sats), and how it fails. The unexplained timeout_secs parameter is the one notable gap for a 4-parameter mutation/creation tool.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: counterparty_id is clarified as the seller and amount_sats is implied by the fee discussion. room_id is only implied ('on a room') and timeout_secs is never explained anywhere, leaving a required-adjacent parameter fully opaque.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Open a Lightning hold-invoice escrow on a room') and clarifies the agent's role (buyer) and counterparty (seller). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like fund_escrow or release_escrow, leaving the agent to infer that this is the initiation step rather than the funding or settlement step.

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?

Gives clear context: use as buyer to lock funds for a seller, with the explicit note that funds do NOT settle until release. It also names a concrete failure condition (escrow_unconfigured until the operator configures a Lightning node). No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative sibling, which keeps it below a 5.

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