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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that a company must be explicitly supplied and that the verb is a GET (read), which is useful. It says nothing about pagination, whether query is passed as a flat map, or what 'Fixed JSON' constrains. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required.

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?

Three short fragments, front-loaded with the endpoint and the hard requirement, with zero filler. The terseness edges toward under-specification ('Fixed JSON') rather than verbosity, which is the lesser fault here.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and three parameters, the description is thin: it never says what a settlement record is, how results are paged, or what fields the query object accepts beyond delegating to describe_nextesy_operation. The existence of an output schema removes the need to document return values, which keeps this at a minimum-viable 3.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for company_name ('explicit company required') and hints that query is flat and filter semantics live in describe_nextesy_operation, but purchaseId is only implied by the path template and the structure of the query object is left entirely to another tool.

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 the concrete endpoint GET /api/v1/sales/purchases/{purchaseId}/settlements, so the resource (settlements for a purchase) is identifiable, but it never states in plain language what the call returns or how settlements differ from related resources like get_purchase_payments. 'Fixed JSON' is unexplained jargon that does not help an agent distinguish this tool from its siblings.

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 routes the agent to describe_nextesy_operation for filter details, which is a genuine pointer to an alternative, but there is no guidance on when to call this versus get_purchase, get_purchase_payments, or list_purchases. Usage is only implied by the endpoint path.

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