escrow__open_escrow

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

The description discloses that the platform fee is computed and frozen at open, and that it returns an escrow_id with state OPEN. However, without annotations, it does not discuss failure modes, idempotency, or prerequisites, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 brief and front-loaded with the tool's domain and purpose. Every sentence adds value, but it could be more structured (e.g., listing key parameters) without becoming verbose.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits critical details about parameter constraints, return value format, and edge cases, leaving agents underinformed for correct usage.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description is expected to explain parameters. It only details 'amount_minor' (positive integer in cents) and mentions 'payer' and 'payee' implicitly. Other parameters like 'terms', 'fee_bps', 'currency', and 'deadline' are not described beyond their defaults.

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 clearly states the action ('Open an escrow') and the involved parties ('payer and payee'). The domain prefix distinguishes it from sibling escrow tools like fund_escrow or release_escrow.

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 implies when to use the tool (to open an escrow) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare with alternatives such as escrow__dispute_escrow or escrow__refund_escrow.

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