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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the server holds no keys, funds, or credits; reads regen-1 only; relays to a specific POST endpoint; costs no gas; and is signed by the user's wallet or passkey. This is meaningful behavioral context for a non-read-only, open-world settlement submission.

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 action and required inputs are front-loaded and the description is generally dense. However, the custody/cost point is repeated across multiple sentences, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 a two-step, non-idempotent, open-world settlement write, the description covers the prior tool, required unchanged payload, signature provenance, relay endpoint, custody model, cost, and settlement return shape. With an output schema and annotations also present, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, and the schema already explains workId, the exact BODY_JSON requirement, and the personal_sign signature. The description reinforces that bodyJson comes from prepare_credit_settlement and that signature is over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN, but adds little parameter meaning beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: submit the signed credit settlement, explicitly framed as step 2 of 2 that completes a record after prepare_credit_settlement. It distinguishes this tool from the prepare step and from other submit_* siblings by naming the exact signed payload and relay endpoint.

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 clearly places the tool after prepare_credit_settlement and says to pass the BODY_JSON unchanged plus the wallet-produced signature. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the step-2-of-2 framing gives enough context for correct routing.

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