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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond by disclosing that the call zeroes an open balance, that dry-run returns the payout preview plus any blocking gate (named approver, incomplete agreement, anomaly hold), and that the same gates back the workspace Settle button. Account-connection requirements are also surfaced, which annotations never convey.

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 critical information — verb, money direction, balance effect — is front-loaded, and the sibling disambiguation follows logically. Slight cost: the confirm dry-run/post protocol is restated from the schema's own parameter description, so a sentence of redundancy keeps it from a 5.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, an agent gets everything it needs: prerequisites, the two-step invocation contract, what the dry-run surfaces, what gates can block, and what state change results. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the mechanical definitions and baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top — it explains what the dry-run actually reports (open accrual to be paid and which gate blocks it) rather than just restating that confirm is a boolean preview/post switch.

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 specific verb and resource ('Settle an agreement — post the PAYOUT') and spells out the concrete effect: per-bucket Settlement events totalling earned minus already settled, driving the open balance to $0. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from compute_close (accrues) and true_up (reconciles), so an agent can pick it out of a crowded sibling list without reading schemas.

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 the full selection logic: this is the money-OUT step versus compute_close and true_up by name, and within the tool it prescribes a two-call protocol — first without confirm to dry-run, then with confirm:true to post. Prerequisites ('Needs the agreement_id', 'Requires a connected Aurgus account') are stated outright.

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