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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is public, contains addresses and signatures only, never handles, and covers both INSTANT per-revenue-event entries and legacy weekly rounds. No pagination, ordering, or rate-limit behavior is disclosed, but for a read-only public ledger the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 information-dense sentence with no filler; it front-loads the core subject ('Every settle of the agent marketing network') and then packs the payload details. The em-dash structure is somewhat run-on, but every clause contributes meaningful information and nothing feels redundant.

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 there is no output schema and no parameters, the description does a good job of conveying what the response contains: revenue, deposit signatures, house share, pools, per-share details, payout addresses, points, USDC, transaction signatures, and status. It also clarifies privacy semantics. Minor gaps remain, such as ordering, time range, and how to interpret status values, but these are not critical for a no-parameter public ledger.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already shows. The description still adds value by enumerating the output contents (revenue, signatures, house 50%, pool, carried-in pool, shares, payout address, points, USDC, tx signature, status), which helps an agent understand what a no-argument call returns.

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 identifies the resource (the ad network's public ledger of settles) and the scope (every revenue event plus legacy weekly rounds), and enumerates the contained data. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'view', but the title and content make the retrieval purpose unambiguous. Sibling differentiation is partial: it emphasizes INSTANT per-revenue-event entries, which distinguishes it from legacy weekly rounds, but it doesn't name sibling tools.

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: this is the public ledger for ad-network settles, applicable when one needs revenue, pool, house cut, and payout share details. It gives contextual hints about what it covers but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over related tools like adnet_stats, adnet_report, or payouts_ledger, nor does it provide exclusions.

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