spraay_escrow_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context: 'Data persists in Supabase' (explaining data source) and 'Costs $0.002 USDC' (cost transparency). No contradictions with 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?

The description is two sentences long, with the first sentence clearly stating the purpose and the second adding relevant details (persistence and cost). No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers purpose, data persistence, and cost. The output schema handles return values. It does not mention pagination or limits, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is adequately complete.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description restates address and status without adding new semantics or constraints 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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'escrows', and clarifies the scope 'by address (depositor, beneficiary, or arbiter) with optional status filter'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like spraay_escrow_get (which likely gets a single escrow) and spraay_escrow_create (which creates).

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?

The description implies usage for querying escrows by address and filtering by status, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like spraay_escrow_get or other listing tools. The context of sibling tools provides some differentiation, but no direct guidance on exclusions or alternatives is given.

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