Take the funds back after T2

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real context: the two-mode preview/execute behavior, what the preview returns (T2, current block height or chain time, whether T2 is reached, amount), and the hard failure condition before T2. It stops short of stating permission/irreversibility details beyond the timelock gating, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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-loaded with the core action and its 'last resort' framing, then the preview semantics, then the failure/alternative routing. Three dense sentences with no filler; every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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, and the description compensates by describing what the preview returns and when the operation is rejected. With full schema coverage, annotations, and these additions, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so both parameters (confirm, order_id) are already fully documented in the schema, including the preview-vs-execute meaning of confirm. The description restates that preview behavior rather than adding new parameter-level detail, so 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 action (take locked funds back to your wallet), the trigger (after the T2 timelock), and the actor (you alone), naming the scenario it exists for (shopper disappeared). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like accept_refund_offer and open_dispute, which it explicitly points at.

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 when-to-use ('last resort', 'after the T2 timelock'), when-not ('before T2 the chain rejects it'), and named alternatives ('prefer accept_refund_offer or open_dispute while the shopper responds'). An agent has a complete decision rule without reading any schema.

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