Review the escrow's ruling

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so 'Read-only.' is largely redundant. The genuinely additive behavior is that this tool cross-checks the escrow's on-chain transaction against the declared split rather than merely displaying it, but that is stated implicitly through the matching logic rather than spelled out as a verification step or its failure modes.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the decision rule follows immediately. The standalone 'Read-only.' sentence duplicates the annotation and is the one element that does not earn its place, but the rest is dense and waste-free.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: the split breakdown, the reason, and the match verdict. Combined with annotations covering safety and idempotency, an agent has everything needed to call and act on the result.

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 single order_id parameter is documented in the schema with its 32-hex format and provenance (request_quote or list_orders). The description adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Show the escrow's ruling for a disputed order') and enumerates exactly what the result contains: the split across the three parties, the reason, and whether the escrow transaction actually pays that split. This is clearly distinguishable from countersign_ruling (executes) and report (escalates).

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 branching guidance: if the ruling matches the transaction, countersign_ruling executes it; if it does not, do not countersign and consider report. Names both alternatives and the condition that selects each, leaving nothing to inference.

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