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

Annotations only declare it is a non-destructive, non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world mutation; the description adds substantial context beyond that — who pays gas, that no signing/broadcast is required, the SETTLED vs SKIPPED outcome model, that zero amounts on unproven cases are placeholders rather than credited results, and that committed markets receive no transaction. This is exactly the return/behavior detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is correctly front-loaded in sentence one, but the body is a dense block of protocol jargon with overlapping coverage — pending finality is explained twice ('Pending finality is not claimable' and later 'Pending or unproven cases return SKIPPED/NOT_CLAIMABLE_YET'). The SETTLED/SKIPPED/COMMITTED_SETTLED terminology could be far tighter, though no sentence is pure 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?

For an 8-parameter authenticated mutation with an output schema, the description covers the behavior an agent most needs: no signing, gas sponsorship, eligibility scoping, and result semantics. The notable omissions are pagination behavior (limit/cursor) and any pointer to the read-only status tools an agent should check first.

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 63% and the description adds almost nothing about individual parameters — limit, cursor, includeIneligible, and proofNonce meaning live entirely in the schema. Only the eligibility framing ('Claim submission applies to onchain markets') indirectly touches includeIneligible. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries most of the parameter burden.

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 first two sentences state a specific verb and resource ('Settle every claimable market owned by the agent wallet') and immediately contrast with prepare-style siblings: 'There is no calldata to sign or broadcast: the protocol submits each market-local claimPayoutFor transaction itself and pays the gas.' An agent can distinguish this from prepare_claims/simulate_claims without reading any 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?

It gives clear applicability rules: onchain markets only, pending finality is not claimable, and committed markets need no call because 'No transaction is submitted for a committed market.' It also points to GET /claims/receipts for already-credited payouts. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (prepare_claims, simulate_claims, get_claim_status) as the explicit alternative path.

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