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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Idempotent' merely repeats the annotation. It does add useful operational context (cron backstop, safe at session start), but never explains what the destructive side of settlement actually does to a position.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then the operational context and the required flag. No filler.

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 present (so return values need no explanation) and annotations carrying the destructive/idempotent profile, the description supplies exactly what is missing: when to reach for it and the confirm gate. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 100% for the single confirm parameter, so the schema already documents it; the description's 'Requires confirm=true' is a helpful reinforcement of the required flag but adds no new semantics or format detail. Baseline 3 applies 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?

States a precise verb+resource ('settle your positions whose markets have resolved') plus the effect ('report what changed'), which cleanly separates it from resolve_market (which resolves a market rather than settling positions). An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 a clear situational cue: it is a backstop to an automatic 5-minute settlement cron and is safe to run at session start, implying it should be called when settlement may have been missed. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or a when-not condition (e.g., what to do if nothing is open).

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