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

Annotations only set readonlyHint=false, which simply indicates it's not readonly; the description goes further by disclosing the side effects: it pays winners, zeroes losers, and books realized P&L. It also clarifies that it requires an agent keychers, but does not mention idempotency or potential partial settlement if some bets are still open.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, clearly states the process, and ends with the return value. It is informative but not bloated; could be slightly more concise by omitting 'Agent key required' if that is a common requirement, but it remains efficient.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with no parameters, but it does have side effects and an output that includes both settled and open bets. The description covers the core logic, the output, and a prerequisite (agent keyath). It does not explicitly state that it will fail if some bets are not yet resolved, but that is implied and minor.

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?

No parameters exist in the schema, so there is nothing for the description to add about them. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, but since the tool operates based on the agent's existing bets, the description doesn't need to explain parameters. It earns a 3 because there is no semantic gap to fill, but it also doesn't provide additional context like which markets 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 opens with a specific verb phrase ('Settle YOUR resolved sports bets') and clearly identifies the resource (sports bets, paper). It provides a clear mechanism (checks against venue board, pays winners, zeroes losers, books P&L) and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'place_sports_bet' by focusing on settlement rather than placement.

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 it is for settling existing bets, not placing new ones, and emphasizes that it operates on 'YOUR' betsaine once resolved. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like 'place_sports_bet' as the correct tool for placing bets, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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