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

Beyond the annotations (which only mark it as a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation), the description discloses the downstream workflow: 14 days to accept or dispute, silence counts as accepted, overdue disputed settlements block new approvals, and human_approved: true is mandatory. It also surfaces document size limits elsewhere in the schema; no claim conflicts with the annotations.

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?

All content is relevant but delivered as one dense paragraph with a redundant restatement ('After a pact window' / 'After a scheduled pact's window') and interleaved money-definition wording. The deadline and consequence sentences are buried mid-paragraph rather than front-loaded.

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 an output schema available and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description still supplies the full operating context an agent needs: deadline, revision loop, acceptance default, blocking consequence, and human-approval requirement. Nothing essential to a correct invocation is missing.

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 description adds real meaning beyond the 67%-covered schema: one line per key in claim.distribution, up to 4 extra_lines for platforms not on record, and nothing_earned: true zeroing every line. It does not explain api_key or human_approved beyond what the schema already says, but the subtle line-mapping semantics are covered.

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 names a specific verb+resource (declares each platform's net revenue, with its report) and scopes it to a pact window, so it is clearly distinct from siblings like respond_to_claim or close_pact. The opening fragment 'After a pact window: declares...' mixes timing into the purpose statement and reads awkwardly, which keeps it from 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?

It states exactly when to call (after a scheduled pact's window, per key in claim.distribution), the deadline (settlement.due_by, 45 days), the revision loop ('Revise by calling again until they accept'), and the consequence of not acting (settlement_overdue pauses approvals). Nothing about when-and-how to use it is left to inference.

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