Assess Counterparty and Job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it aggregates multiple checks in one call, returns a structured report with a 'proceed' bool and 'do_not_proceed_if' blockers, and gates fund locking. No contradiction exists between the description and 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 compact and front-loaded: first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists scope, the third gives invocation timing, and the final sentences define output and safety behavior. Every sentence earns its place without redundant filler.

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 full input schema, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It covers what the tool does, when to run it, the output's top-level structure, and the critical action rule on proceed=false.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented. The description reinforces how job_type and amount_xrp feed into recommendations and KYC checks, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema descriptions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Single pre-flight check before locking funds in escrow' and enumerates the aggregated data sources: trust score, sanctions, KYC, NFT issuer registry, domain status, release conditions, escrow cap, and go/no-go rules. This clearly distinguishes it from individual sibling tools like check_wallet_kyc or check_wallet_sanctions by positioning it as a consolidated assessment.

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 says 'Run this before create_escrow_vault or hire_and_pay' and provides a concrete rule: 'If proceed is False, do not lock funds.' It gives clear invocation context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when a user only needs one specific check.

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