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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, etc., and the description adds useful context such as 'this server holds no keys, no funds and no credits' and 'free with a valid signature,' which clarifies side effects and requirements. No contradictions with annotations, so a strong score.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured, front-loading the action and then providing necessary details about the endpoint and return value. No redundant fluff, though slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 description provides enough context about the tool's role in the settlement flow, including the return value and server constraints. An explicit output schema is not provided, but the return description is sufficient, and sibling tools give broader context.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds significant meaning by specifying that bodyJson must come unchanged from prepare_credit_settlement and that signature is over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN, enhancing the schema info.

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 that the tool completes a credit settlement record by passing workId, bodyJson, and signature, and relays to a specific POST endpoint. It also explicitly distinguishes from the prepare step and other submit tools, making it unambiguous what this tool does.

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 implicitly but clearly indicates that this is the second step after prepare_credit_settlement by referencing 'BODY_JSON from prepare_credit_settlement UNCHANGED' and the signature over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN. It also notes the server has no keys/funds/credits, but does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.

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