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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: settlement is permanent, happens exactly once, requires citing evidence, and may return `needs_confirmation`. These are behavioral facts an agent needs and cannot infer from the annotations alone.

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 and compact at three sentences, each carrying real content (precondition, permanence, return signal). The opening 'The ritual moment: evidence has landed...' is atmospheric rather than strictly informative, a minor waste of words.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key concerns: evidence prerequisite, required/permanent lesson, single-occurrence semantics, and the needs_confirmation return. Combined with 80% schema coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents entryId, verdict enum semantics, workspace, and lesson. The description reinforces that `lesson` is required and permanent, but adds little beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action — settling (closing) an open Ledger entry/decision — with a clear verb+resource. The 'ritual moment' framing is stylized but it does convey the operation's role. It stops short of differentiating from all siblings by name, though it does point at ledger_entries_get as the prerequisite.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Only propose settlement when attached evidence actually answers the prediction') and names the alternative to check first ('check ledger_entries_get first'). It also discloses the one-shot constraint ('settlement happens exactly once'), which is important routing context. It doesn't mention retract/update fallbacks, keeping it from a 5.

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