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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real context the annotations cannot: the derivation of state from receipts, the availability of an offline verifier, and an explicit disclaimer that 'settleable' and 'verified' do not mean a sale occurred or a commission is owed — a genuinely useful guard against over-reading results.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the state enumeration and the semantic caveat; almost every clause earns its place. The disclaimer sentence is long but carries real decision value, so the density is justified.

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 correctly explains the return fields and the meaning of the state values, which is the main risk area. It leaves the sole input parameter unexplained and says nothing about receipt pagination or size limits, so it is strong but not 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?

There is exactly one parameter, case_id, with 0% schema description coverage and only length bounds in the schema. The description never mentions case_id at all — no expected format, source, or where to obtain one — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a concrete verb and resource — retrieves the signed settlement statement of a case — and enumerates what it returns: state, evidence level, net amount, receipts. It never names a sibling such as attribution_record or outcome_case to distinguish itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied. 'Free' and the offline re-runnable verification hint that this is the cheap audit path, but the description never says when to choose it over attribution_record or outcome_case, nor does it state prerequisites for case_id.

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