dispute_escrow

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

With no annotations, the description discloses two behavioral traits: funds remain locked until treasury resolution, and DEPLOYER_PRIVATE_KEY env var is required. This informs the agent of side effects and authentication needs, though it doesn't mention reversibility or invocation limits.

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 concise sentences, each adding critical information: purpose, eligibility/outcome, and environment prerequisite. No redundant language. The description is front-loaded with the primary verb and object.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, eligibility, fund-locking consequence, and env var requirement. It leaves little ambiguity about invocation, though it doesn't describe the return value or failure modes, which is a minor gap.

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 schema fully documents deal_id, and the description adds the constraint that it must be an active escrow deal, supplementing the schema's generic 'Deal ID to dispute.' This provides extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: 'Flag a dispute on an active escrow deal.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like release_escrow or refund_escrow, which handle normal completion paths. The verb 'Flag' and resource 'active escrow deal' are specific.

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?

It notes 'Either buyer or seller can call this,' giving eligibility context. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like release_escrow or refund_escrow, so it stops short of full when/where-not guidance. The context is clear enough for the agent to infer when to use it.

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