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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds substantial context beyond them: the resulting record is UNVERIFIED, paymentUsd stays 0, the amount is the worker's own statement, the call is free with no gas, and the signing window is 5 minutes. It also discloses the signer model (user's own wallet or passkey, house never holds a key).

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 core action and preconditions are front-loaded, but the single dense paragraph repeats the cost/signer facts twice ('FREE, no gas' then 'Cost and signer: free, no gas; the person signs...') and restates the Vealth-never-saw-the-money idea, wasting space that could have been trimmed.

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, yet the description still tells the agent what it gets back (MESSAGE_TO_SIGN, BODY_JSON) and what to do with it, and it covers eligibility, refusal, cost, signer, and expiry. Nothing material for correct invocation 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 constraints: payerWallet must be a payer with standing (an active direct offer the amount covers, or the packet's creator/beneficiary) and amountUsd is what was actually received. It also marks the receipt reference as optional, which reinforces 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 (prepare a direct settlement record) plus its position in the flow ('step 1 of 2' in the title, and the description says it 'Returns MESSAGE_TO_SIGN and BODY_JSON'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling submit_direct_settlement, which it names explicitly.

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 precondition ('After your proof is approved and the payer paid you directly'), an explicit eligibility rule ('only from a payer with standing... or the packet's creator or beneficiary'), an explicit exclusion ('refuses a packet whose wage was paid into Vealth'), and an explicit next step with a deadline ('call submit_direct_settlement within 5 minutes').

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