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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds value by revealing the parallel execution nature, the unified output structure, and the return of a 'ready-to-use settleBody', which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise at 3-4 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Single pre-flight call before settling'), and efficiently covers the alternatives replaced and the key return fields. Every sentence serves a clear function with no redundancy.

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 fairly complex (5 parameters, combined checks, output fields), and the description covers the main purpose, replacement logic, and return structure. It lacks details on defaults (though schema hints at USD), error handling, or idempotency behavior (annotations say not idempotent). However, with output schema present, the listed return fields suffice for basic understanding.

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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, treating the parameters holistically. It does not improve or extend the schema's explanations.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as a single pre-flight call that combines oracle check, compliance screen, and stablecoin routing into a unified go/no-go decision. It explicitly contrasts with the alternative 3-step loop, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compliance.pep_screen and oracle.stability.

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 provides explicit context for when to use this tool: before settling, as a replacement for the multi-step oracle → screen → route loop. However, it does not specify scenarios where using the individual steps might be preferred (e.g., for granular control or debugging), missing exclusion criteria.

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