Retrieve escrow account status for a property using its EIS object ID, returning the client's escrow key or an honest refusal if unavailable.
Эскроу: ключ ЕИСЖС клиента или честный отказ. Описание методов закрыто.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_id | Yes | Идентификатор объекта в ЕИСЖС. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether this is read-only, what side effects exist, what happens on failure, or what 'honest refusal' means operationally. The phrase 'Описание методов закрыто' explicitly avoids describing behavior.
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 very short but not effectively structured; the second sentence is meta-commentary that wastes the reader's attention. The content is under-specified rather than deliberately concise, so brevity is not a virtue here.
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?
Even though complexity is low and an output schema exists, the description fails to explain the tool's core purpose or expected behavior. An agent would struggle to decide whether to invoke this tool because the description is essentially a cryptic tagline.
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 already fully documents the single parameter (object_id as an identifier in EISHS), so baseline is 3. The description adds only a slight hint that the key belongs to a client, but this does not materially improve parameter understanding.
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 only mentions 'Эскроу' (escrow) and a cryptic 'key or honest refusal' phrase, with no clear verb or action. It mostly restates the tool name and adds the unhelpful meta-statement 'Описание методов закрыто' instead of explaining what the tool does.
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 guidance about when to use check_escrow versus any of the sibling tools. No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.