Confirm Escrow Transaction

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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, destructive=false. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the referee caches the escrow sequence number so the worker need not supply it when claiming payment. That caching side-effect is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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 action, then the timing precondition, then a useful side-effect note. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the sequencing precondition plus the sequence-number caching behavior. It could be fuller on failure/idempotency edge cases (e.g., what happens on a duplicate hash), but it is complete enough to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so tx_hash (64-char hex EscrowCreate hash) and escrow_id (receipt from create_escrow_vault) are already fully documented. The description only indirectly touches semantics via the sequence-number caching note; per the rule, a 100%-covered schema sets the baseline at 3.

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 and resource: 'Register the on-chain EscrowCreate transaction hash with the referee.' An agent understands this records a transaction hash, and the mention of EscrowCreate implies sequencing relative to submit_escrow_transaction. It does not explicitly name that sibling as the alternative, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 a clear precondition: 'Call this after submitting the EscrowCreate transaction on XRPL.' This tells the agent the ordering dependency. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or negative conditions (e.g., what to do if the transaction already failed).

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