q402_escrow_create

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool moves no funds, creates a pending record, server-side signing implications, and the release approval nuance for Agent-Wallet escrows. It also mentions optional arbiter changes dispute resolution, and timeout-refund behavior. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond basic mutation.

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?

Description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, funding options, chain/token context, arbiter behavior, and approval nuance. It front-loads the core action and zero-funds fact, then logical detail. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description clarifies return (escrowId) and pending state. It covers creation lifecycle, funding mechanism, multi-party roles (buyer, seller, arbiter), chain and token constraints, and release approval requirement. For a complex escrow creation tool with 8 params, this is complete and actionable.

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 75% (6 of 8 params described), so baseline is 3 but description adds significant semantics for walletId (buyer/funder, server signs gasless lock) and explains the meaning of arbiter (dispute resolution vs release-or-timeout-refund only). It also clarifies amount as human-readable decimal in schema, and description reinforces chain specifics. However, memo and releaseDays get no additional color beyond schema, so not a 5.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Create a Q402 Gasless Escrow'. It specifies non-custodial, EIP-7702, publishes a 'pending' record, returns escrowId, and explicitly states 'MOVES NO FUNDS'. This distinguishes it from siblings like q402_escrow_lock/release/refund which act on an existing escrow.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use walletId vs omit it, how that affects funding and signing. Also specifies chain and token availability (BNB mainnet USDC/USDT) and optional arbiter behavior. It differentiates from other escrow tools by noting the lock step follows ('funds it straight away'), and mentions dashboard approval for Agent-Wallet release, providing clear context.

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