Purchase Extra Submission Attempt

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

Annotations only cover safety flags (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true); the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the mandatory $0.05 fee, the accepted currencies (XRP or RLUSD), the exact destination address, and the successful return value (updated attempts_remaining). For a paid, non-idempotent mutation this is exactly the context an agent needs.

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-loads the action and the trigger, then the cost and return value — a well-ordered structure. The parenthetical about default 3 attempts and max_submissions pricing is useful background but slightly tangential to invoking the tool.

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?

Covers trigger, required payment, destination address, currencies, and post-call workflow, and an output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out. An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly in the escrow workflow.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the fee_hash format and recipient address. The description largely restates the same payment facts rather than adding syntax or constraints beyond them, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Purchase one additional submission attempt') and immediately scopes it to 'a vault that has hit its limit'. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like evaluate_escrow_work or prepare_escrow without opening any schema.

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 an explicit trigger condition — 'When evaluate_escrow_work returns error "submission_limit_reached"' — names the exact alternative tool, and prescribes the follow-up step ('then resubmit with evaluate_escrow_work'). Nothing about when to use this tool is left to inference.

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