q402_escrow_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly says 'Read', indicating a non-mutating operation, and lists the returned content (state, parties, amount, tx hashes). This covers the key safety aspect (no side effects) for a status query, though it omits details like authentication or error cases.

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 a single, tightly crafted sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, enumerates valid states, and lists the key returned fields. Every word adds value; there is no verbosity 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description conveys the essential return values (state, parties, amount, tx hashes) as well as the possible state enums. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result, though it does not explicitly detail the response structure (e.g., JSON shape) or error behavior.

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%: the sole parameter 'escrowId' is fully described as 'The esc_... id from escrow_create.' The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource (a Q402 escrow's current state), listing the possible state values and the contained data (parties, amount, tx hashes). This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling escrow mutation tools like q402_escrow_release, q402_escrow_refund, and q402_escrow_dispute.

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 this is the read-only counterpart to the escrow lifecycle tools, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any preconditions (e.g., 'use this before calling release/refund'). The context from sibling names helps, but the description itself offers no direct guidance.

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