Pay into the escrow

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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent/openWorld, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing what the call does in each mode (preview returns recipients, amounts, network fee; confirm signs and broadcasts), the custody conditions under which funds can leave (2-of-3, shopper after T1, agent after T2), and the approval requirement. That is substantive behavioral context an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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 core action ('Step 4, moves money: pay the quoted lock amount...') before the conditions and modes. It is dense with several clauses per sentence, but each clause carries operational or safety information rather than filler.

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 destructive, non-idempotent money-moving tool with no output schema, the description supplies the state precondition, the preview/execute duality, the approximate return contents, the custody/timelock release rules, and the human-approval requirement. Nothing material to calling it safely is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning the schema does not: confirm=false is a preview that should be called first, and confirm=true signs and broadcasts. order_id is only referenced indirectly via 'this wallet'/'per-order', so it is not fully compensated, but the two-phase semantics of confirm are clearly enriched.

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: paying the quoted lock amount into the per-order 2-of-3 escrow (BTC P2WSH or USDC Safe) plus the escrow fee. It is unmistakable against siblings like request_quote, accept_quote, or confirm_receipt, and even labels itself as step 4 in the flow.

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?

Explicit preconditions ('Only for status accepted/funding'), an explicit ordering rule for the preview mode ('Without confirm: true ... call it first'), and an explicit human-in-the-loop gate ('Ask your human before confirming'). Both when-to-use and how-to-sequence are covered.

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