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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the 96/2/2 payout split, stake return, trust-score mutation, the authorization requirement (signer = cell creator), and the hidden side effect that an `evaluate_cell` transaction fires first causing an Active → Evaluating state transition. This is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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 paragraphs, all front-loaded: the action first, then the economic effects, then the conditional transaction sequencing. No filler, and the bolded term anchors the scan.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. For a stateful mutation with no annotations, the description covers authorization, side effects, ordering, and the state machine — nothing material is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: `scores` is not just data — it triggers a preceding `evaluate_cell` transaction and is conditional on cell state. The ordering/length relationship of `participants` to `scores` is left to the schema.

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 ('Trigger settlement of a work cell') and immediately names the concrete effects: reward distribution, stake return, trust-score update. The resource (work cell) cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling mint_settle_policy.

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 an explicit conditional rule: pass `scores` only if the cell is still Active; omit it if already in Evaluating. It also states the prerequisite that the signer must be the cell's creator. It does not explicitly contrast with mint_settle_policy, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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