q402_escrow_dispute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the confirm:true requirement, the precondition of an arbiter and deadline, and that the arbiter resolves off-tool afterward. This provides a clear behavioral picture, though it does not detail the escrow's post-dispute state.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. Every clause adds necessary context (party, arbiter, deadline, off-tool resolution, confirmation), with no redundant 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?

For a simple two-parameter action, the description adequately covers prerequisites, the action itself, and the follow-up resolution process. The absence of an output schema is not a gap because the description explains the intended flow.

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% and both parameters are described in detail. The description re-emphasizes confirm:true and indirectly references escrowId provenance, but adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: a party (buyer or seller) disputes an open escrow. It adds specific constraints (requires arbiter, before release deadline) that distinguish it from related escrow tools like release or refund, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 when to use: when an escrow is open, has an arbiter, and is before the release deadline. It also mandates user confirmation first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is strong enough to guide selection without ambiguity.

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