Countersign the ruling

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them: it specifies that money moves and the dispute is settled, the refusal condition, and the confirm-gated preview behavior — context an agent cannot get from the annotations alone.

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 critical fact ('Moves money') and packs the precondition, preview behavior, and safety directive into a compact block. Dense but every clause earns its place; slightly clausal but no fluff.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return behavior (returns the same review as review_ruling when not confirmed) and the main failure mode. Combined with destructive annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it safely; only exhaustiveness of error cases is unstated.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both confirm (preview vs real) and order_id (32-hex from request_quote/list_orders). The description reinforces the confirm semantics but adds little beyond the schema, 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 (countersign/sign+broadcast) and resource (the escrow's ruling transaction), plus the concrete effect — 'Moves money' and 'settling the dispute'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from review_ruling by naming it as the fallback behavior.

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 explicit preconditions ('Refused if the transaction does not pay the ruled split'), the preview-vs-execute condition ('Without confirm: true it returns the same review as review_ruling'), and a human-in-the-loop directive ('Ask your human before confirming'). This is close to a full when/when-not/guardrail set.

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